
li" 



OUR FOREIGN RELATIONS: 



PRESENT PERILS FROM ENGLAND AND FRANCE ; THE NATURE AND 
CONDITIONS OF INTERVENTION BY MEDIATION; AND ALSO BY 
RECOGNITION; THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF ANY RECOGNITION 
OF A NEW POWER WITH SLAVERY AS A CORNER- 
STONE ; AND THE WRONGFUL CONCESSION ^ ^^ 
OF OCEAN BELLIGERENCY. J*^""^^ 



SPEECH 



HON. CHARLES SUMNER 



BEFOnE THE 



CITIZENS OF NEW YORK, AT THE COOrER INSTITUTE, 



SEPT. 10, 1863 



BOSTON: 

WRIGHT & POTTER, PRINTERS, 4 SPRING LANE. 

1863. 



•'■■■o- i-eH XTnlv. 



SPEECH. 



Fellow-Citizens, — From the beginning of the' war in which we 
are now engaged, the public interest has alternated anxiously 
between the current of events at home and the more distant 
current abroad. Foreign Relations have been hardly less absorb- 
ing than Domestic Relations. At times the latter have seemed 
to wait upon the former, and a packet from Europe has been like 
a messenger from the seat of war. Rumors of Foreign Interven- 
tion are constant, now in the form of Mediation, and now in the 
form of Recognition ; and more than once the country has been 
summoned to confront the idea of England, and of France too, 
in open combination with Rebel Slave-mongers battling, in the 
name of Slavery, to build an infamous Power on the destruction 
of this Republic. •'. . 

It may be well for us to tYw^n aside from battle and siege here 
at home — from the blazing lines of Gettysburg, Vicksburg and 
Charleston — to glance for a moment at the perils from abroad ; of 
course I mean from England and France, for these are the only 
Foreign Powers that thus far have been moved to intermeddle on 
the side of Slavery. The subject to which I now invite attention 
may not have the attraction of waving standards or victorious 
marches, but, more than any conflict of arms, it concerns the Civil- 
ization of the age. If Foreign Powers can justly interfere against 
Human Freedom, this Republic will not be the only sufferer. 

There is always a natural order in unfolding a subject, and I 
shall try to pursue it on this occasion, under the following heads ; 

First — The perils to our country from Foreign Powers, especially 
as foreshadowed in the unexpected and persistent conduct of 
England and France since the outbreak of the war. 

Secondly — The nature of Foreign Intervention by Mediation, 
with the principles applicable thereto, as illustrated by historic 
instances — showing especially how England, by her conspicuous, 
wide-spread and most determined Intervention to promote the 
extinction of African Slavery, is irrevocably commilted against 
any act or policy that can encourage this criminal pretension. 

Thirdly — The nature of Foreign Intervention by Recognition, 
with the principles applicable thereto, as illustrated by historic 



instances — showing that by the practice of nations, and especially 
by the declared sentiments of British Statesmen, there can be no 
Foreign Recognition of an insurgent Power where the contest for 
Independence is still pending. 

Fourthly — The moral impossibility of Foreign Recognition, even 
if the pretended Power be de facto Independent, where it is com- 
posed of Rebel Slave-mongers seeking to found a new Power with 
Slavery for its declared "corner-stone." Pardon the truthful 
plainness of the terms which I employ. I am to speak not 
merely of Slave-holders ; but of people to whom Slavery is a 
passion and a business — therefore Slave-mongers ; now in Rebel- 
lion for the sake of Slavery — therefore Rebel Slave-mongers. 

Fifthly — The absurdity and wrong of conceding Ocean Bellig- 
erency to a pretended Power, which, in the first place, is without 
a Prize Court — so that it cannot be an Ocean Belligerent in fact — 
and which, in the second place, even if Ocean Belligerent in fact, 
is of such an odious character, that its Recognition is a moral 
impossibility. 

From this review, touching upon the present and the past ; 
leaning upon history and upon law ; enlightened always by prin- 
ciples which are an unerring guide, our conclusion will be easy. 

Perils from Foreign Powers. 
• The perils to our country, as foreshadowed in the action of 
Foreign Powers since the outbreak of the war, first invite our 
attention. 

There is something in the tendencies of nations, which 
must not be neglected. Like individuals, nations influence 
each other ; like the heavenly bodies, they may be disturbed by 
each other in their appointed orbits. This is apparent even in 
peace ; but it becomes more apparent in the convulsions of war, 
sometimes from the withdrawal of customary forces and some- 
times from their increased momentum. It is the nature of war 
to enlarge as it continues. Beginning between two nations, it 
gradually widens its circle, sucking other nations into its fiery 
maelstrom. Such is human history. Nor is it different, if the 
war be for Independence. Foreign Powers may for a while keep 
out of the conflict ; but the examples of history show how difficult 
this has been. 

The Seven United Provinces of Holland, under that illustrious 
character, William of Orange, the predecessor and exemplar of 
our Washington, rose against the dominion of Spain, upheld by 
the bigotry of Philip II., and the barbarity of his representative, 
Alva ; but the conflict, though at first limited to the two parties, 
was not slow to engage Queen Elizabeth, who lent to this war of 
Independence the name of her favorite Leicester and the undying 



heroism of Sidney, while Spain retorted by the Armada. The 
United Provinces of Holland, in their struggle for Independence, 
were the prototype of the United States of America, which I need 
not remind you, drew into their contest the arms of France, 
Spain, and Holland. In the rising of the Spanish Colonies 
which followed, there was less interposition of other nations, 
doubtless from the distant and outlying position of these Colonies, 
although they were not beyond the ambitious reach of the Holy 
Alliance, whose purposes with regard to them were so far thwarted 
by Mr. Canning, backed by the declaration of Mr. Munroe — known 
as the Munroe doctrine — that the British Statesman felt authorized 
to boast that he had called a New World into existence to redress 
the balance of the Old. Then came the struggle for Greek Inde- 
pendence, which, after a conflict of several years, darkened by 
massacre, but relieved by an exalted self-sacrifice, shining with 
names like Byron and Bozzaris, that cannot die, at length chal- 
lenged the powerful interposition of England, France and Russia. 
The Independence of Greece was hardly acknowledged, when 
Belgium, renouncing the rule of the Netherlands, claimed hers 
also, and here again the Great Powers of Europe were drawn into 
the contest. Then came the effort of Hungary, inspired by 
Kossuth, which, when about to prevail, aroused the armies of 
Russia. There was also the contemporaneous effort of the Roman 
Republic, under Mazzini, which when about to prevail, aroused 
the bayonets of France. And lastly we have only recently 
witnessed the resurrection of Italy, inspired by Garibaldi, and 
directed by Cavour ; but it was not accomplished until Louis 
Napoleon, with his well-trained legions, carried the imperial 
eagles into the battle. 

Such are famous instances, which are now so many warnings. 
Ponder them and you will see the tendency, the temptation, the 
irresistible fascination, or the commanding exigency under which, 
in times past. Foreign Nations have been led to take part in con- 
flicts for Independence. I do not dwell now on the character of 
these various interventions, although they have, been mostly in the 
interest of Human Freedom. It is only as examples to put us 
on our guard that I now adduce them. The footprints all seem 
to lead one way. 

But even our war is not without its warnings. If thus far in 
its progress other nations have not intervened, they have not 
succeeded in keeping entirely aloof. The foreign trumpet has 
not sounded yet ; but more than once the cry has come that we 
should soon hear it, while incidents have too often occurred, 
exhibiting an abnormal watchfulness of our affairs and an uncon- 
trollable passion or purpose to intermeddle in them, with signs of 
unfriendly feeling. Of course, this is applicable especially, if not 
exclusively, to England and France. 



Perils from Enoland. 

(1.) There is one act of the British Cabinet which stands fore- 
most as an omen of peril — foremost in time — foremost also in the 
magnitude of its consequences. Though plausible in form, it is 
none the less injurious or unjustifiable. Of course, I refer to that 
inconsiderate Proclamation in the name of the Queen, as early as 
May, 1861, which, after raising Rebel Slave-mongers to an equality 
with the National Government in Belligerent Rights, solemnly 
declares "neutrality" between the two equal parties ; — as if the 
declaration of equality was not an insult to the National Govern- 
ment, and the declaration of neutrality was not a moral absurdity, 
offensive to reason and all those precedents which make the 
glory of the British name. Even if the Proclamation could be 
otherwise than improper at any time in such a Rebellion, it was 
worse than a blunder at that early date. The apparent relations 
between the two Powers were more than friendly. Only a 
few months before, the youthful heir to the British throne 
had been welcomed every where throughout the United States 
— except in Richmond — as in the land of kinsmen. And yet 
— immediately after the tidings of the rebel assault on Fort 
Sumter — before the National Government had begun to put 
forth its strength — and even without waiting for the arrival of 
our newly-appointed Minister, who was known to be at Liver- 
pool on his way to London, the Proclamation was suddenly 
launched. I doubt if any well-informed person, who has read 
Mr. Dallas's despatch of 2d May, 1861, recounting a conversation 
with the British Minister, will undertake to vindicate it in point 
of time. Clearly the alacrity of this concession was unhappy, for 
it bore an air of defiance or at least of heartlessness towards an 
ally of kindred blood engaged in the maintenance of its tradi- 
tional power against an infamous pretension. But it was more 
unhappy still, that the good genius of England did not save this 
historic nation, linked with so many triumphs of freedom, from 
a fatal step, which, under the guise of "neutrality," was a 
betrayal of civilization itself. 

It is difficult to exaggerate the consequences of this precipitate, 
unfriendly and immoral concession, which has been and still is 
an overflowing fountain of mischief and bloodshed — hac fonte 
derivata clades ; — -firsts in what it vouchsafes to Rebel Slave- 
mongers on sea and in British ports, and secondly, in the impedi- 
ments which it takes from British subjects ready to make money 
out of Slavery ; — all of which has been declared by undoubted 
British authority. Lord Chelmsford — of professional renown as 
Sir Frederick Thesiger — now an Ex-Chancellor — used these words 
recently in the House of Lords ; " If the Southern Confederacy 
had not been recognized as a belligerent Power, he agreed with 
his noble and learned friend [Lord Brougham] that, under these 
circumstances, if any Englishman were to fit out a privateer for 



the purpose of assisting the Southern States against the Northern 
States, he ivoukl be guilty of piracy.''^ — But all this was changed 
by the Queen's Proclamation. For the Rebel Slave-monger there 
is the recognition of his flag ; for the British subject there is the 
opportunity of trade. For the Rebel Slave-monger there is fellow- 
ship and equality; for the British subject there is a new customer, 
to wliom he may lawfully sell Armstrong guns and other warlike 
munitions of choicest British workmanship, and, as Lord Palmers- 
ton tells lis, even ships of war too, to he used in behalf of Slavery. 
What was unlawful is suddenly made lawful, while the ban is 
taken from an odious felony. It seems almost superfluous 
to add, that such a concession, thus potent in its reach, must 
have been a direct encouragement and overture to the Rebel- 
lion. Slavery itself was exalted when barbarous pretenders — 
battling to found a new Power in its hateful name — without so 
much as a single port on the ocean where a prize could be 
carried for condemnation — were yet, in the face of this essential 
deficiency, swiftly acknowledged as ocean belligerents, while, 
as a consequence, their pirate ships, cruising for plunder in 
behalf of Slavery, were acknowledged as National ships, entitled 
to equal privileges with the National ships of the United States. 
also for the building of ships, to be used in behalf of Slavery. 
This simple statement is enough. It is vain to say, that such a 
concession was a " necessity." There may have been a strong 
temptation to it, constituting, perhaps, an imagined necessity, as 
with many persons there is a strong temptation to Slavery itself. 
But such a concession to Slave-mongers, fighting for Slavery, can 
be vindicated only as Slavery is vindicated. As well undertake 
to declare " neutrality " between Right and Wrong — between 
Good and Evil — with a concession to the latter of Belligerent 
Rights ; and then set up the apology of " necessity." 

(2.) It was natural that an act so essentially unfriendly in 
character and also in the alacrity with which it was done, should 
create throughout England an unfriendly sentiment towards us, 
easily stimulated to a menace of war. And this menace was not 
wanting soon afterwards, when the two rebel emissaries on board 
the Trent were seized by a patriotic, brave commander, whose high- 
est fault was, that, in the absence of instructions from his own Gov- 
ernment, he followed too closely British precedents. This accident 
— for such it was and nothing else — was misrepresented, and, with 
an utterly indefensible exaggeration, was changed by the British 
nation, backed by the British Government, into a casus belli, as if 
such an unauthorized incident, which obviously involved no ques- 
tion of self-defence, could justify war between two civilized Nations. 
And yet, in the face of a positive declaration from the United States, 
that it was an accident, the British Government made preparations 
to take part ivith rebel slave-mong-ers, and it fitly began such ignoble 
preparations by keeping back from the British people, the official 



8 

despatch of 30th November, 18G1, where our Government, after 
announcing that Capt. Wilkes had acted " without any instruc- 
tions," expressed a trust that " the British Government would con- 
sider the subject in a friendly temper," and promised " the best 
disposition on our part." It is painful to recall these things. But 
they now belong to history, and we cannot forget the lesson they 
teach. 

(3.) But this tendency to espouse the side of Slavery, appears 
in. small things, as well as great, becoming more marked in 
proportion to the inconsistency involved. Tiuis, for instance, 
where two British sul)jects " suspected " of participation in the 
Rebellion were detained in a military prison, without the benefit 
of habeas corpus, the British Minister at Washington was directed 
by Her Majesty's Government to complain of their detention as 
an infraction of the Constitution of the United States, of which this 
intermeddling.Power assumed for the time to be the " expounder ;" 
and the case was accordingly presented on this ground. But 
the British cabinet, in its instinctive aptness to mix in our 
war, if only by diplomatic notes, seemed to have forgotten the 
British Constitution, under which, in 1848, with the consent of 
the leaders of all parties, — Brougham and Derby, Peele and 
D'Israeli, — the habeas corpus was suspended in Ireland and the 
Government was authorized to apprehend and detain " such 
persons as they shall suspect." The bill sanctioning this exercise 
of power went through all its stages in the House of Commons in 
one day, and on the next day it went through all its stages in the 
House of Lords, passing to be a law without a dissenting vote. 
It will hardly be believed that Lord Russell, who now complains 
of our detention of " suspected " persons, as an infraction of the 
Constitution of the United States, was the Minister who intro- 
duced this Bill, and that, on that occasion he used these words : 
" I believe in my conscience that this measure is calculated to 
prevent insurrection, to preserve internal peace, to preserve the 
unity of this empire and to save the throne of these realms and 
the free institutions of this country." 

(4.) The complaint about the habeas corpus was hardly 
answered when another was solemnly presented, on account of the 
effort to complete the blockade of Charleston, by sinking at 
its mouth ships laden with stone, usually known as the " stone 
blockade." In common times her Majesty's government would 
have shrunk from any intermeddling here. It could not have 
forgotten that history, early and late, and especially English 
history, abounds in similar incidents ; that as long ago as 1456, 
at the siege of Calais by the Duke of Burgundy, and also in 1628 
at the memorable siege of Rochelle by Cardinal Richelieu, ships 
laden with stone were sunk in the harbor ; that during the war 
of the Revolution in 1778 six vessels were sunk by the British 
commander in the Savannah River, not far from this very Charles- 



9 

ton, as a protection against the approach of the French and 
American naval forces ; that in 1804, under the direction of the 
British Admiralty, an attempt was made to choke the entrance into 
the harbor of Boulogne by sinking stone vessels, and that in 1809 
the same blockade was recommended to the Admiralty by no less 
a person than Lord Dundonald, with regard to another port, saying, 
" Ships filled with stones will ruin forever the anchorage of Aix, 
and some old vessels of the line well loaded would be excellent 
for the purpose." But this complaint by the British Cabinet 
becomes doubly strange, when it is considered that one of the 
most conspicuous treaties of modern history contained solemn 
exactions by England from France, that the harbor of Dunkirk, 
whose prosperity was regarded with jealousy, should be permanently 
" filled up," so that it could no longer furnish its accustomed hospi- 
talities to commerce. This was the Treaty of Utrecht, in 1713. 
But by the Ti-iple Alliance, only four years later, France was con- 
strained to stipulate again that nothing should be omitted" which 
Great Britain could think necessary for the entire destruction of the 
harbor," and the latter Power was authorized to send commission- 
ers as " ocular witnesses of the execution of the Treaty." These 
humiliating provisions were renewed in successive treaties down 
to the peace of Versailles in 1783, when the immunity of that 
harbor was recognized with American Independence. But Great 
Britain, when compelled to open Diirkirk, still united with the 
Dutch in closing the Scheldt, or as a British writer expresses it, she 
"became bound to assist in obstructing this navigation.''^ (JLncy- 
clopccdia Britannica. Vol. x. p. 77, article, France.) One of 
the two reasons put forth by Great Britain for breaking peace with 
France in 1792, and entering upon that world-convulsing war, 
was that this revolutionary Power had declared it would open the 
Scheldt. And yet it is Great Britain, thus persistent in closing 
ports and rivers, that now interferes to warn us against a " stone 
blockade." 

(5.) The same propensity and the same inconsistency will be 
found in another instance, where an eminent peer, once Foreign 
Secretary, did not hesitate, from his place in Parliament, to 
charge the United States with making medicines and surgical 
instruments contraband, " contrary to all the common laws of 
war, contrary to all precedent, not excluding the most ignorant 
and barbarous ages.''^ Thus exclaims the noble lord. Now I 
have nothing to say of the propriety of making these things con- 
traband. My simple object is to exhibit the spirit against which 
we are to guard. It would be difficult to believe that such a dis- 
play could be made in the face of the historic fact, exposed in 
the satire of Peter Plymley's Letters, that. Parliament, in 1808, 
by large majorities, prohibited the exportation of Peruvian Bark 
into any territory occupied by France, and that this measure was 
introduced by no less a person than Mr. Percival, and commended 



10 

by him on the ground that " the severest pressure was already- 
felt on the continent from the want of this article, and that it 
was of great importance to the armies of the enemy." (Han- 
sard's Parliamentary Debates.') Such is authentic British prece- 
dent, in an age neither " ignorant " nor " barbarous," which is now 
ostentatiously forgotten. 

(6.) This same recklessness, which is of such evil omen, breaks 
forth again in a despatch of the Foreign Secretary, where he 
undertakes to communicate to Lord Lyons the judgment of the 
British Cabinet on the President's Proclamation of Emancipa- 
tion. Here at least, you will say, there can be no misunder- 
standing, and no criticism ; but you are mistaken. Such an act, 
having such an object, and being of such unparalelled importance, 
would, under any ordinary circumstances, when great passions 
found no vent, have been treated by the Minister of a Foreign 
Power with supreme caution, if not with sympathy ; but, under 
the terrible influence of the hour. Lord Russell, not content with 
condemning the Proclamation, misrepresents it in the most bare- 
faced manner. Gathering his condemnation into one phrase, he 
says, that it " makes Slavery at once legal and illegal," whereas 
it is obvious, on the face of the Proclamation, to the most careless 
observer, that, whatever may be its faults, it is not obnoxious to 
this criticism, for it makes Slavery legal nowhere, while it makes 
it illegal in an immense territory. An official letter, so incom- 
prehensible in motive, from a statesman usually liberal if not 
cautious, must be regarded as another illustration of that irri- 
tating tendency, which will be checked only when it is fully 
comprehended. 

(7.) The activity of our navy is only another occasion for 
criticism in a similar spirit. Nothing can be done any where to 
please our self-constituted monitor. Our naval officers in the 
West Indies, acting under instructions modelled on the judgments 
of the British Admiralty, are reprehended by Lord Russell in a 
formal despatch. The judges in our Prize Court are indecently 
belittled by this same Minister from his place in Parliament, when 
it is notorious that there are several who will compare favorably 
with any British Admiralty Judge since Lord Stowell, not even 
excepting that noble and upright magistrate, Dr. Lushington. 
And this same Minister has undertaken to throw the British 
shield over a newly-invented contraband trade with the rebel 
slave-mongers via Metamoras, claiming that it was " a lawful 
branch of commerce," and " a perfectly legitimate trade." The 
Dolphin and Peterhoff were two ships elaborately prepared in 
London, for this illicit commerce, and they have been duly con- 
demned as such ; but their seizure by our cruisers was made the 
occasion of official protest and complaint, with the insinuation of 
"vexatious capture and arbitrary interference," followed by the 
menace, that, under such circumstances, " it is obvious Great 
Britain must interfere to protect her flag." 



11 

(8.) This persistent, inexorable criticism, even at the expense 
of all consistency or of all memory, has also broken forth in 
forms incompatible with that very " neutrality," which was so 
early declared. It was bad enough to declare neutrality, when 
the question was between a friendly Power and an insulting Bar- 
barism ; but it was worse after the declaration to depart from it, 
if in ivords only. The Court of Rome at a period wlien it pow- 
erfully influenced the usage of Nations, instructed its cardinal 
Legate, on an important occasion, first and above all things, to 
cultivate " indifference " between the parties, and in this regard 
his conduct was to be so exact, that, not only should no partiality 
be seen in his conduct, but it should not be remarked even 
" in the tnords of his domesLicsy (Wicquefort, Parfait Ambas- 
sadeur, Liv. ii. p. 144.) If in that early day, before steam and 
telegraph, or even the newspaper, neutrality was disturbed by 
" words," how much more so now, when every word is multiplied 
indefinitely, and wafted we know not where — to begin, wherever 
it falls, a subtle, wide-spread and irrepressible influence. But 
this injunction is in plain harmony with the refined rule of Count 
Bernstoff, who, in his admirable despatch on this subject, at the 
time of the Armed Neutrality, says scntentiously, " Neutrality 
does not exist when it is not perfect.'''' It must be clear and 
above suspicion. Like the reputation of a woman, it is lost when 
you begin to talk about it. Unhappily tliere is too much occasion 
to talk about the " neutrality " of England. I say nothing of a 
Parliamentary utterance that the National cause was " detested 
by a large majority of the House of Commons," or of other 
most unneutral speeches. I confine myself to official declara- 
tions. Here the case is plain. Several of the British Cabinet, 
including the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the 
Exchequer, two great masters of " words," have allowed them- 
selves in public speeches, to characterize offensively our pres- 
ent effort to put down Rebel Slave-mongers, as " a contest 
for empire on one side and for independence on the other." 
Here were " words," which, under a specious form, were under- 
stood to give encouragement to Rebel Slave-mongers. But they 
were more specious than true — revealing nothing but the side 
espoused by the orators. Clearly on our side it is a contest 
for National life, involving the liberty of a race. Clearly on the 
other side it is a contest for Slavery, in order to secure for 
this hateful crime neiu recognition and power. Our Empire is 
simply to crush Rebel Slave-mongers. Tiieir Independence is 
simply the unrestrained power to whip women and sell, children. 
Even if at the beginning, the National Government made no 
declaration on the subject, yet the real character of the war was 
none the less apparent in the repeated declarations of the other 
side, who did not hesitate to assert their purpose to build a new 
Power on Slavery — as in the Italian campaign of Louis Napoleon. 



12 

against Austria, the object was necessarily apparent, even before 
the Emperor tardily at Milan put forth his life-giving Proclama- 
tion that Italy should be free from the Alps to the Adriatic, by 
which the war became, in its declared purpose, as well as in 
reality, a war of Liberation. That such a Rebellion should be 
elevated by the unneutral " words " of a Foreign Cabinet, into 
a respectability of which it is obviously unworthy, is only another 
sign which we must watch. 

(9.) But these same orators of the British Cabinet, not con- 
tent with giving us a bad name, have allowed themselves to pro- 
nounce against us on the whole case. They declared that the 
National Government cannot succeed in crushing Rebel Slave- 
mongers and that dismemberment is inevitable. " Jefferson 
Davis" says one of them " has created a nation.'' Thus do these 
representatives of declared "neutrality" degrade us and exalt 
Slavery. But it is apparent that their annunciation, though 
made in Parliament and repeated at public meetings, was founded 
less on any special information from the seat of war, disclosing 
its secret, than on political theory, if not prejudice. It is true 
that our eloquent teacher, Edmund Burke, in his famous letter to 
the Sheriffs of Bristol, argued most persuasively that Great 
Britain could not succeed in reclaiming the colonies, whicli had 
declared themselves independent. His reasoning rather than 
his wisdom, seems to have entered into and possessed the British 
statesmen of our day, who do not take the trouble to see that the 
two cases are so entirely unlike that the example of the one is not 
applicable to the other ; that the colonies were battling to found 
a new Power on the corner-stone of "liberty, equality and hap- 
piness to all men," while our Slave-mongers are battling to found 
a neiv Power on the corner-stone of " Slavery." The difference 
is such as to become a contrast — so that whatever was once gen- 
erously said in favor of American Independence now tells with 
unmistakable force against this new-fangled pretension. 

No British statesman saw the past more clearly than Lord 
Russell when long ago, in striking phrase, he said that England, 
in her war against our fathers, " had engaged /or the suppression 
of Libert//;" QHansard's Parliamentary Debates, 2d series. Vol. 
viii. p. 1036, April 16, 1823,) but this is precisely what Rebel 
Slave-mongers are now doing. Men change ; but principles are 
the same now as then. Therefore, do I say, that every sympathy 
formerly bestowed upon our fathers now belongs to us their 
children, striving to uphold their work against bad men, who 
would not only break it in pieces but put in its stead a new 
piratical Power, whose declared object is " the suppression of 
Liberty." And yet British ministers, mounting the prophetic 
tripod, presume most oracularly to foretell the doom of this 
Republic. Their prophecies do not disturb my confidence. I 
do not forget how often false prophets have appeared — includ- 



■ IS 

ing the author of the Oceana, who published a demonstration 
of the impossibility of monarchy in England only six months 
before Charles II. entered London amidst salvoes of cannon, 
and the hurrahs of the people. Nor do I stop to consider how 
far such prophecies uttered in public places by British Minis- 
ters are consistent with that British " neutrality " which is so 
constantly boasted. Opinions are sometimes allies more potent 
than subsidies, especially in an age like the present. Prophecies 
are opinions proclaimed and projected into the future, and yet 
these are given freely to Rebel Slave-mongers. There is matter 
for reflection in this instance, but I adduce it now only as 
another illustration of the times. Nothing can be more clear 
than that whosoever assumes to play the prophet becomes pledged 
in character and pretension to sustain his prophecy. The learned 
Jerome Cardan, professor and doctor, and also dabbler in astrol- 
ogy, of great fame in the middle ages, undertook to predict the 
day of his death, and he maintained his character as a successful 
prophet by taking his own life at the appointed time. If British 
Ministers, who have played the prophet, escape the ordinay influ- 
ences of this craft, it will be from that happy nature, which has 
suspended for them human infirmity and human prejudice. But 
it becomes us to note well the increased difficulties and dangers 
to which on this account the National cause is exposed. 

(10.) But it is not in " words" only, — of speeches,- despatches 
or declarations, — that our danger lies. I am sorry to add that 
there are acts also with which the British Government is too closely 
associated. I do not refer to the unlimited supply of " muni- 
tions of war," so that our army at Charleston, like our army at 
Vicksburg, is compelled to encounter Armstrong guns and Blake- 
ley guns, with all proper ammunition, from England ; for the 
right of British subjects to sell these articles to Rebel Slave-mon- 
gers was fixed when the latter, by sudden metamorphosis were 
changed from lawless vagrants of the ocean to lawful Belligerents. 
Nor do I refer to the swarms of swift steamers, " a pitchy cloud 
warping on the Eastern wind," always under the British flag, with 
contributions to Rebel Slave-mongers ; for these too, enjoy a kin- 
dred immunity. Of course, no Royal Proclamation can change 
wrong into right or make such business otherwise than immoral ; 
but the Proclamation may take from it the character of felony. 

But even the Royal Proclamation gives no sanction to the prep- 
aration in England of a naval expedition against the commerce of 
the United States. It leaves the Parliamentary Statute, as well 
as the general Law of Nations, in full efficacy to restrain and 
punish such an offence. And yet in the face of this obvious prohi- 
bition, standing forth in the text of tlie law, and founded in reason 
" before human statute purged the common weal," also exempli- 
fied by the National Government, which, from the time of Wash- 
ington, has always guarded its ports against such outrage, powerful 



14 

ships have been launched, equipped, fitted out and manned in 
England, with arms supplied at sea from another English vessel, 
and then, assuming that by this insulting hocus pocus all English 
liability was avoided, they have proceeded at once to rob and 
destroy the commerce of the United States. England has been 
their naval base from which were derived the original forces and 
supplies which enable them to sail the sea. Several such ships 
are now depredating on the ocean, like Captain Kidd, under pre- 
tended commissions — each in itself a naval expedition. As Eng- 
land is not at war with the United States, these ships can be 
nothing else than pirates ; and their conduct is that of pirates. 
Unable to provide a Court for the trial of prizes, they revive 
for every captured ship the barbarous Ordeal of Fire. Like 
pirates, they burn all that they cannot rob. Flying from sea to 
sea, they turn the ocean into a furnace and melting-pot of American 
commerce. Of these incendiaries the most famous is the Alabama, 
with a picked crew of British sailors, with "trained gunners out 
of her Majesty's naval reserve," and with every thing else from 
keel to top-mast British ! which, after more than a year of unlawful 
havoc, is still burning the property of our citizens, loithont once 
entering- a Rebel Slave-monger port, but always keeping the 
umbilical connection with England, out of whose womb she sprung, 
and never losing the original nationality stamped upon her by 
origin, so that at this day she is a British pirate ship — precisely 
as a native-born Englishman, robbing on the high seas, and never 
naturalized abroad, is a British pirate subject. 

It is bad enough that all this should proceed from England. 
It is hard to bear. Why is it not stopped at once ? One cruiser 
might perhaps elude a watchful Government. But it is difficult 
to see how this can occur once — twice — three times ; and the cry 
is still they sail. Two powerful rams are now announced, like 
stars at a theatre. Will they too be allowed to perform ? I wish 
there were not too much reason to believe that all these perform- 
ances are sustained by a prevailing British sympathy. A French- 
man, who was accidentally a prisoner on board the Alabama at 
the destruction of two American ships, describes a British packet 
in sight whose crowded passengers made the sea resound with 
cheers as they witnessed the captured ships handed over to the 
flames. The words of Lucretius were verified ; Suave etiam 
belli certamina magna tueri. But these same cheers were echoed 
in Parliament, as the builder of the piratical craft gloried in his 
deed. The verse which filled the ancient theatre with glad 
applause, declared a sympathy with Humanity ; but English 
applause is now given to Slavery and its defenders ; " I am an 
Englishman, and nothing of Slavery is foreign to me." Accordingly 
Slavery is helped by English arms, English gold, English ships, 
English speeches, English cheers. And yet for the honor of 
England, let it be known, that there are Englishmen, who have 



15 

stood firm and unshaken amidst this painful recreancy. Their 
names cannot be forgotten. And still more for the honor of 
England, let it be spoken that the working classes, who were called 
to suffer the most, have bravely borne their calamity, without 
joining with the enemies of the Republic. Their cheers have 
been for Freedom and not for Slavery. 

But the cheers of the House of Commons seem to prevail in 
her Majesty's Government. Municipal Law is violated — while 
International Law, in its most solemn obligation to do unto others 
as we would have them do unto us — is treated as if it did not 
exist. Eminent British functionaries in Court and Parliament, 
vindicate the naval expeditions, which, in the name of Slavery, 
have been unleashed against a friendly Power. Taking advan- 
tage of an admitted principle, that " munitions of war " may 
be supplied, the Lord Cliief Baron of the Exchequer tells us, 
that "ships of war" may be supplied also. Lord Palmerston 
echoes the Lord Chief Baron. Each vouches American author- 
ity. But they are mistaken. The steel which they strive to 
" impell " cannot be feathered from our sides. Since the 
earliest stage of its existence the National Government has 
asserted a distinction between the two cases ; and so has the 
Supreme Court, although there are words of Story which have 
been latterly quoted to the contrary. But the authority of the 
Supreme Court is positive on both the points into which the 
British apology is divided. The first of these is that, even if a 
" ship of war " cannot be furnished, the offence is not complete 
until the armament is put aboard, so that where the ship, though 
fitted out and equipped in a British port, awaits her armament 
at sea, she is not liable to arrest. Such an apology is an insult 
to the understanding and to common sense — as if it was not 
obvious that the offence begins with the laying of the keel for 
the hostile ship, knoiving- it to be such ; and in this spirit the 
Supreme Court has decided that it " was not necessary to find 
that a ship on leaving port was armed or in a condition to 
commit hostilities ; — for citizens are restrained from such acts as 
are calculated to involve the country in a war." U. S. vs. Quincy, 
6 Peters, 445.) The second apology assumes, that, even if the 
armament were aboard so that the " ship of war" was complete at 
all points, still the expedition would be lawful, if the juggle of a 
sale were adroitly employed. But on this point the Supreme 
Court, speaking by Chief Justice Marshall, has left no doubt of 
its deliberate and most authoritative judgment. In the case 
before the Court, the armament was aboard, but cleared as 
cargo ; the men too were aboard but enlisted for a commercial 
voyage ; the ship, though fitted out to cruise against a nation 
with which we were at peace, was not commissioned as a privateer, 
and did not attempt to act as such until she had reached the 
River La Plata, where a commission was obtained and the crew 



16 

re-enlisted^ yet, in the face of these extenuating circumstances, it 
was declared by the whole Court that the neutrality of the United 
States had been violated, so that the guilty ship could not after- 
wards be recognized as a legitimate cruiser. All these disguises 
were to no purpose. The Court penetrated them every one, 
saying that, if such a ship could lawfully sail there would be on 
our part " a fraudulent neutrality, disgraceful to our government, 
of which no nation would be the dupe." (T/^e Gran Para,l 
Wheat., 471, and also four other cases in same volume.^ But a 
"neutrality" worse even than that condemned in advance by our 
Supreme Court, " of which no nation would be the dupe," is now 
served out to us, which nothing but the fatal war spirit that has 
entered into Great Britain can explain. There was a time when 
the Foreign Secretary of England, truly eminent as statesman 
and as orator, Mr. Canning, said in the House of Commons : " If 
war must come, let it come in the shape of satisfaction to be 
demanded for injuries, of rights to be asserted, of interests to be 
protected, of treaties to be fulfilled. But, in God's name, let it 
not come on in the paltry, pettifogging way of fitting out ships in 
our harbors to cruise for gain. At all events let the country dis- 
dain to be sneaked into a ivar." (Canning's Speeches, Vol, v. 
p. 51.) These noble words were uttered in reply to Lord John 
Russell and his associates in 1823, on their proposition to repeal 
the Foreign Enlistment Act and to overturn the statute safeguards 
of British neutrality. But they speak now with greater force 
than then. 

Even if it be admitted that " ships of war," like " munitions of 
war," may be sold to a Belligerent, as is asserted by the British 
Prime Minister, echoing the Lord Chief Baron, it is obvious that 
it can be only with the distinction, to which I have already alluded, 
that the sale is a commercial trarisaction, pure and simple, and 
not, in any respect, a hostile expedition fitted out in England. 
The ship must be " exported" as an article of commerce, and it 
must continue such until its arrival at the belligerent port, 
where alone can it be fitted out and commissioned as a " ship of 
war," when its hostile character will commence. Any attempt 
in England to impart to it a hostile character, or, in one word, to 
make England its naval base, must be criminal ; but this is 
precisely what, has been done. And here are the leonine foot- 
prints which point so badly. 

(11.) But not content with misconstruing the decisions of our 
Supreme Court, in order to make them a cover for naval expedi- 
tions to depredate on our commerce, our whole history is forgotten 
or misrepresented. It is forgotten, that, as early as 1793, under 
the administration of Washington, before any Act of Congress on 
the subject, the National Government recognized its liability, 
under the Law of Nations, for ships fitted out in its ports to depre- 
date on British commerce ; that Washington, in a Message to 



17 

Congress, describes such ships as " vessels commissioned or 
equipped in a ivarlike form^ within the limits of the United 
States," and also as " military expeditions or enterprises," 
(^American State Papers, Vol. i. p. 22,) and that Jefferson, in 
vindicating this policy of repression, said, in a letter to the French 
Minister, that " it was our wish to preserve the morals of our 
citizens from being vitiated by courses of lawless plunder and 
murder ; " (^Ibid, 148.) that, on this occasion the National 
Government made the distinction between " munitions of war " 
which a neutral might supply in the way of commerce to a bellig- 
ent, and " ships of war," which a neutral was not allowed to 
supply, or even to augment with arms ; that Mr. Hammond, tlie 
British plenipotentiary at that time, by his letter of 8th May, 
1793, after complaining of two French privateers fitted out at 
Charleston, to cruise against British Commerce, expressly declares 
that he considers them " breaches of that neutrality which the 
United States profess to observe, and direct contraventions of the 
Proclamation which the President had issued," ( Wharton's State 
Trials, p. 49,) and that very soon there were criminal proceed- 
ings, at British instigation, on account of these privateers, in 
which it was affirmed by the Court, that such ships could not be 
fitted out in a neutral port witliout a violation of international 
obligations ; that, promptly thereafterwards, on the application 
of the British Government, a statute was enacted, in harmony 
with the Law of Nations, for the better maintenance of our neu- 
trality ; that, in 1818, Congress enacted another statute in the 
nature of a Foreign Enlistment Act, which was proposed as 
an example by Lord Castlereagh, when urging a similar statute 
upon Parliament ; that in 1823 the conduct of the United 
States on this whole head was proposed as an example to the 
British Parliament by Mr. Canning; that, in 1837, during the 
rebellion in Canada, on the application of the British Govern- 
ment, and to its special satisfaction, as was announced in Par- 
liament by Lord Palmerston, who was at the time Foreign 
Secretary, our Government promptly declared its purpose " to 
maintain the supremacy of those laws whicli had been passed to 
fulfil the obligations of the United States towards all nations 
which should be engaged in foreign or domestic warfare ;" and, 
not satisfied with its existing powers, undertook to ask additional 
legislation from Congress ; that Congress proceeded at once to tlie 
enactment of another statute, calculated to meet the immediate 
exigency, wherein it was provided that collectors, marshals and 
other officers shall " seize and detain any vessel wliich may be 
provided or prepared for any military expedition or enterprise 
against the territories or dominions of any Foreign Prince or 
Power." (Statutes at Large, Vol. v. p. 212.) It is something 
to forget these things ; but it is convenient to forget still further 
that, on the breaking out of the Crimean War, in 1854, tlie 
2 



18 

British Government, jointly with France, made another appeal to 
the United States, that our citizens " should rigorously abstain 
from taking part in armaments of Russian privateers, or in any 
other measure opposed to the duties of a strict neutrality " and 
this appeal, which was declared by the British Government to be 
" in the spirit of just reciprocity," was answered on our part by a 
sincere and determined vigilance, so that not a single British or 
French ship suffered from any cruiser fitted out in our ports. 
And it is also convenient to forget still further the solemn obliga- 
tions of Treaty, binding on both parties, by which it is stipulated, 

" That the subjects and citizens of the two nations shall not do any acts of 
hostility or violence ac/ainst each other, nor accept commissions or instructions 
so to act from any foreign prince or state, enemies to tlie other party ; nor 
shall the enemies of one of the parties be permitted to invite or endeavor 
to enlist in their military service, any of the subjects or citizens of the other 
party ; and the laws against all such offences and aggressions shall be punc- 
tually executed." (Statutes at Large, Vol. viii. p. 127.) 

But at the date of this Treaty, in 1794, there was little legislation 
on the subject in either country ; so that the Treaty, in harmony 
with the practice, testifies to the requirements of the Law of 
Nations, as understood at the time by both Powers. 

And yet, forgetting all these things, — -which show how faith- 
fully the National Government has acted, both in measures 
of repression and measures of compensalion — also how often the 
British Government has asked and received protection at our 
hands, and how highly our .example of neutrality has been appre- 
ciated by leading British statesmen — and forgetting also that 
"spirit of just reciprocity" which, besides being the prompting 
of an honest nature, had been positively promised — ship after ship 
is permitted to leave British ports to depredate on our commerce ; 
and when we complain of this outrage, so unprecedented and so 
unjustifiable, all the obligations of International Law are ignored, 
and we are petulantly told that the evidence against the ships is 
not sufficient under the statute ; and when we propose that the 
statute shall be rendered efficient for the purpose, precisely as in 
past times the British Government, under circumstances less 
stringent, proposed to us, we are pointedly repelled by the old 
baronial declaration, that there must be no change in the laws of 
England; 'while to cap this strange insensibility, LordPalmerston, 
in one of the last debates of the late Parliament, brings against 
us a groundless charge of infidelity to our neutral duties during 
the Crimean war, when the fact is notoriously the reverse, and 
Lord Russell, in the same spirit, imagines an equally groundless 
charge, which he records in a despatch, that we have recently 
enlisted men in Ireland, when notoriously we have done no such 
thing. Thus all the obligations of reciprocal service and good 
will are openly discarded, while our public conduct, as well in 
the past as the present, is openly misrepresented. 



19 

(12.) This flagrant oblivion of history and of duty, which seems 
to be the adopted policy of the British Government, has been 
cliaracteristically followed by a flat refusal to pay for the damages 
to our commerce caused by tlie hostile expeditions. The United 
States, under Washington, on the application of the British 
Government, made compensation for damages to British commerce 
under circumstances much less vexatious, and, still further, by 
special treaty, made compensation for damages " by vessels origi- 
nally armed " in our ports, which is the present case. Of course, 
it can make no difference — not a pin's difference — if the armament 
is carried out to sea, in another vessel from a British port, and tiiere 
transhipped. Such an evasion may be effectual against a Par- 
liamentary statute, but it will be impotent against a demand upon 
the British Government, according to the principles of Interna- 
tional Law ; for this law looks always at the substance and not the 
form, and will not be diverted by the trick of a pettifogger. 
Whether the armament be put on board in port or at sea, 
England is always the naval base, or, according to the language 
of Sir William Scott, in a memorable case, the " station " or 
" vantage ground," — which he declared a neutral country could 
not be. {Twee Gebroeders, 3 Robinson, R. 162.) Therefore, 
the early precedent between the United States and England 
is in every respect completely applicable, and since this prece- 
dent was established — not only by the consent of England but 
at her motion — it must be accepted on the present occasion 
as an irreversible declaration of International duty. Other 
nations might differ, but England is bound. And now it is 
her original interpretation, first made to take compensation from 
us, which is flatly rejected, when we ask compensation from her. 
But even if the responsibility for a hostile expedition fitted out in 
British ports were not plain, there is something in the recent con- 
duct of the British Government calculated to remove all doubt. 
Pirate ships are reported on the stocks ready to be launched, and 
when the Parliamentary statute is declared insufficient to stop 
them, the British Government declines to amend it, and so doing, 
it openly declines to stop the pirate ships, saying, " if the Parlia- 
mentary statute is inadequate then let them sail." It is not 
needful to consider the apology. The act of declension is positive 
and its consequences are no less positive, fixing beyond question 
the responsibility of the British Government for these criminal 
expeditions. In thus fixing this responsibility, we but follow the 
suggestions of reason, and the text of an approved authority, 
whose words have been adopted in England. 

" It must he laid down as a maxim, that a sovereign, who, knowing the 
crimes of his subjects, as for example that they 'practice piracy on strangers, 
and being also able and obliged to hinder it, does not hinder it, renders 
himself criminal, because he has consented to the had action, the commission 



20 

of lohich he has permitted. It is presumed that a Sovereign knows what 
his subjects openly and frequently commit, and, as to his poioer of hindering 
the evil, this likewise is always presumed, unless the want of it be clearly 
proved." 

Such are the words of Biirlemaqui, in his work on Natural Law, 
quoted with approbation by Phillimore in his work on the liaw 
of Nations. — (^Phillimore, Vol. i. p. 237.) Unless these words are 
discarded as " a maxim," — while the early precedent of British 
demand upon us for compensation is also rudely rejected— it is 
difficult to see how the British Government can avoid the conse- 
quences of complicity with the pirate ships in all their lawless 
devastation. But I forbear to dwell on this accumulating liability, 
amounting already to many millions of dollars, with accumulating 
exasperations also. My present object is accomplished, if I 
make you see which way danger lies. 

(13.) But beyond acts and words this same British rabbia 
shows itself in the official tone, which has been adopted towards 
the National cause in its unparalelled struggle — especially 
throughout the correspondence of the British Foreign Office. Of 
course, there is no friendship in any of these letters. Nor is there 
any sympathy with the National championship against Rebel Slave- 
mongers, nor one word of mildest dissent even from the miscreant 
apostolate which was preached in their behalf. Naturally the 
tone is in harmony with the sentiment. Hard, curt, captious, 
cynical, it evinces an indifference to those kindly relations which 
nations ought to cultivate with each other, and which should be 
the study of a wise statesmanship. The Malay 7'uns a-muck, and 
such is the favorite diplomatic style in dealing with us. This is 
painfully conspicuous in all that concerns the pirate ships. But 
I can well understand that a Minister, who so easily conceded 
Belligerent Rights to Rebel Slave-mongers, and then so easily 
permitted their ships to sally forth for piracy, would be very 
indifferent to the tone of what he wrote. And yet even outrage 
may be soothed or softened by gentle words ; but none such have 
come out of British diplomacy to us. Most deeply do I regret 
this too suggestive failure. And believe me, fellow citizens, I say 
these things with sorrow unspeakable, and only in discharge of 
my duty on this occasion, when, face to face, I meet you to. 
consider the aspects of our affairs abroad. 

(14.) But there is still another head of danger in which all 
others culminate. I refer to an intrusive Mediation or, it may be, 
a Recognition of the Slave-monger pretension as an Independent 
Nation ; for such propositions have been openly made in Parlia- 
ment and constantly urged by the British press, and, though not 
yet adopted by her Majesty's Government, they have never been 
repelled on principle, so that they constitute a perpetual cloud, 
threatening to break, in our foreign relations. It is plain to all 



21 

who have not forgotten history, that England never can ho gnilty 
of such Recognition without an unpardonable apostacy ; nor can 
she intervene by way of Mediation except in the interests of 
Freedom. And yet such are the strange " elective affinities " 
newly born between England and Slavery ; such is the towering 
blindness, with regard to our country, kindred to that which pre- 
vailed in the time of George Grenville and Lord North, that her 
Majesty's Government, instead of repelling the proposition, simply 
adjourn it, meanwhile adopting the attitude of one watching to 
strike. The British Minister at Washington, of model prudence, 
whose individual desire for peace I cannot doubt, tells his Govern- 
ment in a despatch which will be found in the last Blue Book, 
that as yet he sees no sign of " a conjuncture at which 'Foreign 
Powers may step in ivith propriety and effect to put a stop to the 
effusion of blood." Here is a plain assumption that such a con- 
juncture may occur. But for the present we are left free to wage 
the battle against Slavery without any such Intervention in arrest 
of our efforts. 

Such are some of the warnings which lower from the English 
sky, bending over the graves of Wilberforce and Clarkson, while 
sounding from these sacred graves are heard strange, un-English 
voices, crying out, " Come unto us. Rebel Slave-mongers, whip- 
pers of women and sellers of children, for you are the people 
of our choice, whom we welcome promptly to ocean rights — 
with Armstrong guns and naval expeditions equipped in our 
ports, and on whom we lavish sympathy always and the prophecy 
of success ; — while for you, who uphold the Republic and oppose 
Slavery, we have hard words, criticism, rebuke and the menace 
of war." 

Perils from France. 

If we cross the channel into France, we shall not be encouraged 
much. And yet the Emperor, thougli acting habitually in concert 
witli the British Cabinet, has not intermeddled so illogically or 
displayed a temper of so little international amiability. Tlie 
correspondence under his direction, even at tlie most critical 
moments, leaves little to be desired in respect of form. Nor has 
there been a single blockade-runner under the French flag ; nor 
a single pirate ship from a French port. But in spite of these 
things, it is too apparent that the Emperor has taken sides against 
us in at least four important public acts — positively, plainly, 
offensively. The Duke de Choiseul, Prime Minister of France, 
was addressed by Frederick the Great, as " the coachman of 
Europe," — a title which belongs now to Louis Napoleon. But he 
must not try to be " the coachman of America." 

(1.) Following the example of England Louis Napoleon has 
acknowledged the Rebel Slave-mongers as ocean Belligerents, so 
that with the sanction of France, our ancient ally, their pirate 



22 

ships, although without a single open port which they can call 
their own, enjoy a complete immunity as lawful cruisers, while all 
who sympathize witli tliem may furnish supplies and munitions of 
war. This fatal concession was aggravated by the concurrence 
of the two great Powers, But, God be praised, their joint act, 
though capable of giving a brief vitality to Slavery on pirate 
decks, will be impotent to confirm this intolerable pretension. 

(2.) Sinister events are not alone and this recognition of 
Slavery was followed by an expedition of France, in concurrence 
with England and Spain, against our neighbor Republic, Mexico. 
The two latter Powers, with becoming wisdom, very soon with- 
drew ; but the Emperor did not hesitate to enter upon an invasion. 
A French fleet with an unmatched iron-clad, the consummate 
product of French naval art, is now at Vera Cruz and the French 
army after a protracted siege has stormed Puebla and entered the 
famous Capital. This far-reaching enterprise was originally said 
to be a sort of process, served by a general, for the recovery of 
outstanding debts due to French citizens. But the Emperor in a 
mystic letter to General Forey gave to it another character. He 
proposed nothing less than the restoration of the Latin race on 
this side of the Atlantic, and more than intimates that the United 
States must be restrained in power and influence over the Gulf 
of Mexico and the Antilles. And now the Archduke Maximilian 
of Austria has been proclaimed Emperor of Mexico under the 
protection of France. It is obvious that this imperial invasion, 
though not openly directed against us, would not have been made, 
if our convulsions had not left the door of the continent ajar, so 
that foreign Powers may now bravely enter in. And it is more 
obvious that this attempt to plant a throne by our side would 
" have died before it saw the light," had it not been supposed that 
the Rebel Slave-mongers were about to triumph. Plainly the 
whole transaction is connected with our affairs, and I know not if 
it may not be a stepping-stone to some actual participation in the 
widening circle of the war. But it can be little more than a 
transient experiment — for who can doubt that this imperial exotic, 
planted by foreign care and propped by foreign bayonets, will 
disappear before the ascending glory of the Republic. 

(o.) This enterprise of war was followed by an enterprise of 
diplomacy not less hardy. The Emperor, not content with stirring 
against us the gulf of Mexico, the Antilles and the Latin race, 
entered upon work of a different character. He invited England 
and Russia to unite with France in tendering to the two Belliger- 
ents (such is the equal designation of our Republic and the 
embryo slave-monger mockery !) their joint Mediation to procure 
" an armistice for six months, during which every act of war, 
direct or indirect, should provisionally cease on sea as well as on 
land, to be renewed if necessary for a further period." The 
Cabinets of England and Russia, better inspired, declined the 



\ 



23 

invitation, which looked to little short of Recognition itself. Under 
the armistice proposed all our vast operations must have been 
suspended — the blockade itself must have ceased — while the rebel 
ports were opened on tlie one side to unlimited imports of supplies 
and military stores, and on the other side to unlimited exports of 
cotton. Trade for the time would have been legalized in these 
ports, and Slavery would have lifted its grinning front before the 
civilized world. Not disheartened by this failure, the Emperor 
alone pushed forward his diplomatic enterprise against us, as he 
had alone pushed forward his military enterprise against Mexico, 
and he proposed to our Government the unsupported mediation 
of France. His offer was promptly rejected by the President. 
Congress by solemn resolutions, adopted by both Houses, with 
singular unanimity, and communicated since to all foreign govern- 
ments, announced that such a proposition could be attributed 
only " to a misunderstanding of the true state of the question 
and the real character of the war in which the Republic is 
engaged ; and that it was in its nature so far injurious to the 
national interests that Congress would be obliged to consider its 
repetition an unfriendly act." This is strong language, but it 
frankly states the true position of our country. Any such offer, 
whatever may be its motive, must be an encouragement to the 
Rebellion. In an age when ideas prevail and even words become 
things, the simple declarations of statesmen are of incalculable 
importance. But the head of a great nation is more than states- 
man. The imperial proposition tended directly to the dismem- 
berment of the Republic and the substitution of a ghastly Slave- 
monger nation. 

Baffled in this effort, twice attempted, the Emperor does not 
yet abandon its policy. We are told that " it is postponed to a 
more suitable opportunity ;" so that he too waits to strike — if the 
Gallic cock does not sound the alarm in an opposite quarter. 
Meanwhile the development of the Mexican expedition shows too 
clearly the motive of mediation. It was all one transaction. 
Mexico was invaded for empire, and mediation was proposed in 
order to help the plot. But the invasion must fail with the 
diplomacy to which it is allied. 

(4.) But the policy of the French Emperor towards our 
Republic has not been left to any uncertain inference. For a 
long time public report has declared him to be unfriendly, and 
now public report is confirmed by what he has done and said. 
The ambassadorial attorney of Rebel Slave-mongers has been 
received by him at the Tuilleries ; members of Parliament, on an 
errand of hostility to our cause, have been recqived by him at 
Fontainebleau ; and the official declaration has been made that 
he desires to recognize the Rebel Slave-mongers as an Independent 
Power. This has been hard to believe ; but it is too true. T!ie 
French Emperor is against us. In an evil hour, under tempta- 



24 

tions which should be scouted, he forgets the precious tradi- 
tions of France wliose blood commingled with ours in a common 
cause ; he forgets the sword of Lafayette and Rochambeau flash- 
ing by the side of the sword of Washington and Lincoln, while 
the lilies of the ancient monarchy floated together with the 
stars of our infant flag ; he forgets that early alliance, sealed 
by Franklin, which gave to the Republic the assurance of 
national life, and made France the partner of her rising glory ; 
Heu pietas, lieu prisca fides, — manibus date lilia plenis ; and he 
forgets still more the obligations of his own name, — how the 
first Napoleon surrendered to us Louisiana and the whole region 
West of the Mississippi, saying, " this accession of territory 
establishes forever the power of the United States, and gives to 
England a maritime rival destined to humble her pride ; " and 
he forgets also how he himself, when beginning his Litervention 
for Italian Liberty, boasted proudly that France always stood for 
an " idea ; " and, forgetting these things, which mankind cannot 
forget, he seeks the disjunction of this Republic, with the spoliation 
of that very territory, which had come to us from the first Napo- 
leon, while France, always standing for an " idea " is made under 
his auspices to stand for the " idea " of welcome to a new evangel 
of Slavery, with Mason and Slidell as the evangelists. Thus is 
the imperial influence thrown on the side of Rebel Slave-mongers. 
Unlike the ancient Gaul, the Emperor forbears for the present to 
fling his sword into the scale ; but he flings his heavy hand, if 
not his sword. 

But only recently we have the menace of the sword. The 
throne of Mexico has been offered to an Austrian Archduke. The 
desire to recognize the Lidependence of Rebel Slave-mongers has 
been officially declared. These two incidents are to be taken 
together — as the complements of each other. And now we are 
assured by concurring report, that Mexico is to be maintained as 
an Empire. The policy of the Holy Alliance, originally organized 
against the great Napoleon, is adopted by his representative 
on the throne of France. What its despot authors left undone 
the present Emperor, nephew of the first, proposes to accomplish. 
It is said that Texas also is to be brought under the Imperial Pro- 
tectorate, thus ravishing a possession, wiiich belongs to this 
Republic, as much as Normandy belongs to France. The " parti- 
tion " of Poland is acknowledged to be the great crime of the last 
century. It was accomplished by Three Powers, with the silent 
connivance of the rest ; but not without pangs of remorse on the part 
of one of the spoilers. " I know," said Maria Theresa to the ambas- 
sador of Louis XVI., " tiiat I have brought a deep stain on my 
reign by what has been done in Poland ; but I am sure that I should 
be forgiven, if it could be known what repugnance I had to it." 
(^Flussau, Histoire de la Diplomatie Francaise, Vol. vii. p. 125.) 
But the French Emperor seeks to play on this continent tiie very 



25 

part which of old caused the contrition of Maria Theresa ; nor could 
the " partition" of our broad country — if in an evil hour it were 
accomplished — fail to be the great crime of the present century. 
Tranipler upon the Republic in France — trampler upon the Repub- 
lic in Mexico — it remains to be seen if the French Emperor can 
prevail as trampler upon this Republic. I do not think he can ; 
nor am I anxious on account of the new Emperor of Mexico, who 
will be as powerless as King Canute against the rising tide of the 
American people. His chair must be withdrawn or he will be 
overwhelmed. 

And here I bring to an end this unpleasant review. It is with 
small satisfaction, and only in explanation of our relations with 
Foreign Powers, that I have accumulated these instances, not one 
of which, small as well as great, is without its painful lesson, 
while they all testify with a single voice to the perils of our 
country. 

[11.] 

Foreign Intervention, by Mediation or Intercession. 

But there is another branch of the subject, which is not less 
important. Considering all these things and especially how great 
Powers abroad have constantly menaced Intervention in our war, 
now by criticism and now by proffers of Mediation, all tending 
painfully to something further, it becomes us to see what, accord- 
ing to the principles of International Law and the examples 
of history will justify Foreign Intervention, in any of the forms 
which it may take. And here there is one remark which may 
be made at the outset. Nations are equal in the eye of Inter- 
national Law, so that what is right for one is right for all. It 
follows that no nation can justly exercise any right which it 
is not bound to concede under like circumstances. Therefore, 
should our cases be reversed, there is nothing which England 
and France have now proposed or which they may hereafter 
propose which it will not be our equal right to propose, when 
Ireland or India once more rebel, or when France is in the throes 
of its next revolution. Generously and for the sake of that Inter- 
national Comity, which should not be lightly hazarded, we may 
reject the precedents they now furnish ; but it will be hard for 
them to complain if we follow them. 

Foreign Intervention is on its face inconsistent with every idea 
of National Independence, which in itself is nothing more than 
the conceded right of a nation to rest undisturbed so long as it 
does not disturb others. If nations stood absolutely alone, dis- 
sociated from each other, so that what passed in one had little or 
no influence in another, only a tyrannical or intermeddling spirit 
could fail to recognize this right. But civilization itself, by draw- 
ing nations nearer together and bringing them into one society, 
has brought them under reciprocal influence, so that no nation 



26 

can now act or suffer by itself alone. Out of the relations and 
suggestions of good neighborhood — involving, of course, the admit- 
ted right of self-defence — springs the only justification or apology 
which can be found for Foreign Intervention^ which is the general 
term to signify an interposition in the affairs of another coun- 
try, whatever form it may take. Much is done under the name 
of " good offices," whether in the form of Mediation or Interces- 
sion ; and much also by military power, whether in the declared will 
of superior force or directly by arms. Recognition of Indepen- 
dence is also another instance. Intervention in any form is 
interference. If peaceable it must be judged by its motive and 
tendency ; if forcible it will naturally be resisted by force. 

Intervention may be between two or more nations, or it may be 
between the two parties to a civil war ; and yet again, it may be 
where there is no war, foreign or domestic. In each case, it 
should be governed strictly by the same principles, except, per- 
haps, that, in the case of a civil war, there should be a more 
careful consideration, not only of the rights, but of the suscepti- 
bilities of a nation so severely tried. This is the obvious sugges- 
tion of humanity. Indeed, Intervention between nations is only 
a common form of participation in foreign war ; but intervention 
in a civil war is an intermeddling in the domestic concerns of 
another nation. Of course, whoever acts at the joint invitation 
of the belligerent parties^ in order to compose a bloody strife, will 
be entitled to the blessings which belong to the peace-makers ; 
but, if uninvited, or acting only at the invitation of one party, 
he will be careful to proceed with reserve and tenderness, in the 
spirit of peace, and will confine his action to a proffer of good 
offices in the form of Mediation or Intercession, unless he is ready 
for war. Such a proffer may be declined without offence. But 
it can never be forgotten that, where one side is ohviov sly fighting 
for Barbarism^ any Intervention, whatever form it may take, — if 
only by captious criticism, calculated to give encouragement to 
the wrong side, or to secure for it time or temporary toleration, 
if not final success, — is plainly immoral. If not contrary to the 
Law of Nations, it ought to be. 

Intervention, in the spirit of Peace and for the sake of Peace, 
is one of the refinements of modern civilization. Intervention, 
in the spirit of war, if not for the sake of war, has filled a large 
space in history, ancient and modern. But all these instances 
may be grouped under two heads ; first. Intervention in external 
affairs ; and, secondly, Intervention in internal affairs. The first 
may be illustrated by the Intervention of the Elector Maurice, of 
Saxony, against Charles Y. ; of King William against Louis 
XIV. ; of Russia and France, in the seven years' war ; of Russia 
again between France and Austria, in 1805, and also between 
France and Prussia, in 1806 ; and of France, Great Britain and 
Sardinia, between Turkey and Russia, in the war of the Crimea. 



27 

The Intervention of Russia, Austria, and Prussia, in the affairs 
of Poland ; of Great Britain among the native Powers of India ; 
and of the Allied Powers, under the continued inspiration of the 
Treaty of Piluitz, in the French Revolution, are illustrations of 
the second head. But without dwelling on these great examples, 
I shall call attention to instances, which show more especially the 
growth of intervention, first, in external, and, then, in internal 
affairs. And here I shall conceal nothing. Instances, which 
seem to be against the principles which I have at heart, will at 
least help to illustrate the great subject, so that you may see it 
as it is. 

Intervention in External Affairs. 

(1.) First in order, and for the sake of completeness, I speak 
of Intervention in external affairs, where two or more nations are 
parties. 

As long ago as 1645, France offered Mediation between what 
was then called " the two crowns of the North," Sweden and 
Denmark. This was followed, in 1648, by the famous Peace of 
Westphalia, the beginning of our present Law of Nations, which 
was negotiated under the joint Mediation of the Pope and the 
Republic of Venice, present by Nuncio and Ambassador. Shortly 
afterwards, in 1655, the Emperor of Germany offered his Media- 
tion between Sweden and Poland, but the old historian records 
that the Swedes suspected him of seeking to increase ratlier than 
to arrange pending difficulties, which was confirmed by his 
appearance shortly afterwards in the Polish camp. But Sweden, 
though often belligerent in those days, was not so always, and, in 
1672, when war broke forth between France and England on one 
side and the Dutch Provinces on the other, we find her proffering 
a Mediation, which was promptly accepted by England, who justly 
rejected a similar proffer which the Elector of Brandenburg, 
ancestor of the kings of Prussia, had the hardihood to make while 
marching at the head of his forces to join the Dutch. The 
English notes on this occasion, written in what at the time was 
called " sufficiently bad French but in most intelligible terms," 
declared that the Electoral proffer, though under the pleasant 
name of mediation, Qiar le dovx no7n de mediation,') was in real- 
ity an arbitration, and that, instead of a Mediation, unarmed and 
disinterested, it was a Mediation, armed and pledged to the 
enemies of England. (Wicquefort, L'Ambassadeur, Vol. i. 
p. 135.) 

Such are some of the earlier instances, all of which have their 
lesson for us. But there are modern instances. I allude only to 
the Triple Alliance between Great Britain, Prussia and Holland, 
which, at the close of the last century, successively intervened, 
by a Mediation, which could not be resisted, to compel Denmark — 



28 

which had sided with Russia against Sweden — to remain neutral for 
the rest of the war; then in 1791 to dictate the terms of peace 
between Austria and the Porte ; and lastly in 1792, to constrain 
Russia into an abandonment of her designs upon the Turkish 
Empire, by the peace of Jassey. On this occasion the Empress 
of Russia, Catharine, peremptorily refused the Mediation of 
Prussia and the Mediating Alliance made its approaches through 
Denmark, by whose good offices the Empress was finally induced 
to consent to the Treaty. While thus engaged in a work of pro- 
fessed Mediation, England, in a note to the French ambassador 
declined a proposition to act as Mediator between France and the 
Allied Powers; leaving that world-embracing war to proceed. But 
England has not only refused to act as Mediator but has also refused 
to submit to a mediation. This was during the last war with the 
United States, when Russia, at that time the ally of England, 
proffered her Mediation between the two belligerents, which was 
promptly accepted by the United States. Its rejection at the 
time by England, causing the prolongation of hostilities, was 
considered by Sir James Mackintosh less justifiable, as " a medi- 
ator is a common friend, who counsels both parties with a weight 
proportioned to their belief in his integrity and their respect for 
his power ; but he is not an arbitrator to whose decision they sub- 
mit their differences where award is binding on them.^' The 
peace of Ghent was concluded at last under Russian Mediation. 
But England has not always been belligerent. When Andrew 
Jackson menaced letters of marque against France, on account of 
a failure to pay a sum stipulated in a recent Treaty with the 
United States, King William lY. proffered his Mediation between 
the two Powers ; but happily the whole question was already 
arranged. It appears also that, before our war with Mexico, the 
good offices of England were tendered to the two parties, but 
neither was willing to accept them, and war took its course. 
Such are instances of interference in the external affairs of 
nations, and since International Law is to be traced m history, 
they furnish a guide which we cannot safely neglect, especially 
in view of the actual policy of England and France. 

Intervention in Internal Affairs. 

(2.) But the instances of Foreign Intervention in the internal 
affairs of a nation are more pertinent to the present occasion. 
Tliey are numerous and not always harmonious, especially if we 
compare the new with the old. In the earlier times such Inter- 
vention was regarded with repugnance. But the principle then 
declared has been sapped on the one side by the conspiracies of 
tyranny, seeking the suppression of liberal institutions, and on 
the other side, by a generous sympathy, breaking forth in support 
of liberal institutions. According to the old precedents, most of 



29 

which will be found in the gossiping book of Wicquefort, from 
whence they have been copied by Mr. Wildman, even Foreign 
Intercession was prohibited. Not even in the name of charity 
could one ruler speak to another on the domestic affairs of his 
government. Peter, King of Arragon, refused to receive an 
embassy from Alphonzo, King of Castile, entreating mercy for 
rebels. Charles IX., of France, a detestable monarch, in reply to 
ambassadors of the Protestant princes of Germany, pleading for his 
Protestant subjects, insolently said that he required no tutors to 
teach him how to rule. And yet this same sovereign did not 
hesitate to ask the Duke of Savoy to receive certain subjects 
" into his benign favor and to restore and re-establish them in 
their confiscated estates." (Guizot's Cromwell, Vol. ii. p. 210.) 
In this appeal there was a double inconsistency ; for it was not 
only an interference in the affairs of another Prince but it was in 
behalf of Protestants, only a few months before the massacre of 
St. Bartholomew. Henry III., the successor of Charles, and a 
detestable monarch also, in reply to the Protestant ambassadors, 
announced that he was a sovereign prince, and ordered them to 
leave his dominions. Louis XIII. was of a milder nature, and yet 
when the English ambassador, the Earl of Carlisle, presumed to 
speak in favor of the Huguenots, he declared that no interference 
between the King of France and his subjects could be approved. 
The Cardinal Richelieu, who governed France so long, learning 
that an attempt was made to procure the Intercession of the 
Pope stopped it by a message to his Holiness, that the King would 
be displeased by any such interference. The Pope himself, on 
another recorded occasion, admitted that it would be a pernicious 
precedent to allow a subject to negotiate terms of accommodation 
through a foreign Prince. On still another occasion, when the 
King of France, forgetting his own rule, interposed in behalf of the 
Barberini Family, Innocent X. declared, that as he had no desire 
to interfere in the affairs of France, he trusted that his Majesty 
would not interfere in his. Queen .Christina of Sweden, on 
merely hinting a disposition to proffer her good offices, for the 
settlement of the unhappy divisions of France, was told by the 
Queen Regent, that she might give herself no trouble on the 
subject, and one of her own Ministers at Stockholm declared that 
the overture had been properly rejected. Nor were the States 
General of Holland less sensitive. They even went so far as to 
refuse audience to the Spanish ambassador, seeking to congratu- 
late them on the settlement of a domestic question, and, when 
the French ambassador undertook to plead for the Roman Cath- 
olics, the States by formal resolution denounced his conduct as 
inconsistent with the peace and constitution of the Republic, all 
of which was communicated to him by eight deputies who added 
by word of mouth whatever the resolution seemed to want in 
plainness of speech. 



30 

Nor is England without similar examples. Louis XIII., 
shortly after the marriage of his sister Henrietta Maria with 
Charles I., consented that the English ambassador should 
interpose for the French Protestants; but when tlie French 
ambassador in England requested the repeal of a law against 
Roman Catholics, Charles expressed his surprise that the King of 
France should presume to intermeddle in English affairs. Even 
as late as 1745, when, after the battle of Culloden, the Dutch 
ambassador in France was induced to address the British Govern- 
ment in behalf of Charles Edward, the Pretender, to the effect 
that if taken he should not be treated as a rebel, it is recorded 
that this Intercession was greatly resented by the British Govern- 
ment which, not content with an apology from the unfortunate 
official, required that he should be rebuked by his own govern- 
ment also. And this is British testimony with regard to Intervention 
in a civil war, even when it took the mildest form of Intercession 
for the life of a prince. 

But in the face of these repulses, all these nations at different 
times have practiced Intervention in every variety of form. Some- 
times by Intercession or " good offices " only, sometimes by 
Mediation, and often by arms. Even these instances attest the 
intermeddling spirit, for wherever Intervention was thus repulsed, 
it was at least attempted. 

But there are two precedents belonging to the earlier period, 
which deserve to stand apart, not only for tlieir historic impor- 
tance, but for their applicability to our times. The first was the 
effort of that powerful minister, who during the minority of Louis 
XIV. swayed France — Cardinal Mazarin — to institute a Mediation 
between King Charles I. and his Parliament. The civil war had 
already been waged for years ; good men on each side, had fallen, 
Falkland fighting for the King aud Hampden fighting for the Par- 
liament, and other costliest blood had been shed on the fields of 
Worcester, Edgehill, Newbury, Marston Moor, and Naseby, when 
the ambitious Cardinal, wishing to serve the King, according to 
Clarendon, promised "to press the parliament so imperiously, and 
to denounce a war against them, if they refused to yield what was 
reasonable." For this important service he selected the famous 
Pomponne de Believre, of a family tried in public duties — himself 
President of the Parliament of Paris and a peer of France — con- 
spicuous in personal qualities, as in place, whose beautiful head 
preserved by the graver of Nantueil is illustrious in art, and whose 
dying charity lives still in the great hospital of the Hotel Dieu at 
Paris. On his arrival at London, the graceful ambassador pre- 
sented himself to that Long Parliament which knew so well how 
to guard English rights. Every overture was at once rejected, by 
formal proceedings, from which I copy these words : " We do 
declare that we ourselves have been careful on all occasions to 
compose these unhappy troubles, yet we have not, neither can, 



31 

admit of any Mediation or interposing betwixt the King- and us by 
any foreign Prince or State ; and we desire that his Majesty, the 
French King, will rest satisfied with this our resolution and 
answer." On the committee which drew this reply was John 
Selden, unsurpassed for learning and ability in the whole splendid 
history of the English bar, on every book of whose library was 
written, "Before every thing. Liberty," and also that Harry Vane 
whom Milton, in one of his most inspired sonnets, addresses, as 

" Vane, young in years, but in sage counsel old, 
Than whom a better Senator ne'er held 
The helm of Rome, when gowns not arms repelled 
The fierce Epirot and the African bold." 

The answer of such men may well be a precedent to us ; especially 
should England, taking up the rejected policy of Mazarin, presume 
to send any ambassador to stay the Republic in its war with 
Slavery. 

But the same heart of oak, which was so .strenuous to repel 
the Intervention of France, in the great question between King 
and Parliament, was not less strenuous even in Intervention — when 
it could serve the rights of England or the principles of religious 
liberty. Such was England when ruled by the great Protector, 
called in his own day " chief of men." No nation so powerful 
as to be exempt from that irresistible intercession, where beneath 
the garb of peace there was a gleam of arms. Froin France, 
even under the rule of Mazarin, he claimed respect for the 
Protestant name, which he insisted upon making great and 
glorious. From Spain, on whose extended empire the sun at 
that time never ceased to shine, he insisted that no Englishman 
should be subject to the Inquisition. Reading to his council a 
despatch from Admiral Blake, announcing that he had obtained 
justice from the Viceroy of Malaga, Cromwell said " that he 
hoped to make the name of Englishman as great as ever that of 
Roman had been." In this same lofty mood he turned to propose 
his Mediation between Protestant Sweden and Protestant Bremen, 
" chiefly bewailing that being both his friends they should so 
despitefully combat one against another ;" " offering his assistance 
to a commodious accommodation on both sides," and " exhorting 
them by no means to refuse any honest conditions of reconcili- 
ation."— (iliiV^ow's Prose Works, Vol. vi. p. 315, 16.) Here was 
Intervention between nation and nation ; but it was soon followed 
by an Intervention in the internal affairs of a distant country, 
which of all the acts of Cromwell is the most touching and 
sublime. The French ambassador was at Whitehall urging the 
signature of a treaty, when news unexpectedly came from a 
secluded valley of the Alps — far away among those mountain 
torrents which are the affluents of the Po— that a company of 
pious Protestants, who had been for centuries gathered there, 



32 

where they kept the truth pure " when our fathers worshipped 
stocks and stones," were now suffering terrible persecution from 
their sovereign, Emanuel of Savoy ; that they had been despoiled 
of all possessions and liberties, brutally driven from their homes, 
given over to a licentious and infuriate violence, and that when 
they turned in s(jlf-defence, they had been " slain by the bloody 
Piemontese, that rolled mother with infant down the rocks ; " and 
it was reported that French troops took part in this dismal 
transaction. The Protector heard the story, and his pity flashed 
into anger. He declined to sign the treaty until France united 
with him in securing justice to these humble sufferers, whom he 
called the Lord's people. For their relief he contributed out of 
his own purse X2,000, and authorized a general collection through- 
out England, which reached to a large sum ; but, besides giving 
money, he set apart a day of Humiliation and Prayer for them. 
Nor was this all. " I should be glad," wrote his Secretary, 
Thurloe, " to have a most particular account of that business, 
and to know what has become of these poor people, for whom our 
very souls here do bleed." — ( Vaug-han^s Protectorate, Vol. i. p. 
177.) But a mightier pen than that of any plodding secretary 
was enlisted in this pious Intervention. It was John Milton, 
glowing with that indignation which his sonnet on the massacre 
in Piemont has made immortal in the heart of man, who wrote 
the magnificent despatches, in which the English nation of that day 
after declaring itself " linked together with its distant brethren, 
not only by the same type of humanity, but by joint communion 
of the same religion," naturally and gloriously insisted that 
" whatever had been decreed to their disturbance on account of 
the Reformed Religion should be abrogated, and that an end be 
put to their oppressions." But not content with this call upon 
the Prince of Savoy, the Protector appealed to Louis XIV. and 
also to his Cardinal Minister ; to the States General of Holland ; 
to the Protestant Cantons of Switzerland ; to the King of Denmark ; 
to Gustavus Adolphus, and even to the Protestant Unitarian 
Prince of remote Transylvania ; and always by the pen of Milton 
— rallying these Princes and Powers in joint intreaty and inter- 
vention and " if need be to some other speedy course, that such a 
numerous multitude of our innocent brethren may not miserably 
perish for want of succor and assistance." The regent of Savoy, 
who was the daughter of Henry IV., professed to be affected by this 
English charity, and announced for her Protestant subjects " a free 
pardon, and also such privileges and graces as cannot but give 
the Lord Protector a sufficient evidence of the g-reat respect borne 
both to his person and Mediation.'^ — ( Guizofs History of Crom- 
well, Vol. ii. p. 211-19; Milton's Prose Works, Vol. vi. p. 318-37.) 
But there was still delay. Meanwhile Cromwell began to inquire 
where English troops might debark in the Prince's territories, 
and Mazarin, anxious to complete the yet unfinished Treaty with 



33 

England, joined in requiring an immediate pacification in tlie 
valleys and the restoration of these persecuted people to their 
ancient liberties. It was done. Such is the grandest Intervention 
of English history, inspired by Milton, enforced by Cromwell, and 
sustained by Louis XIV., with his Cardinal minister by his side, 
while foreign nations watched the scene. • 

But this great instance, constituting an inseparable part of 
the glory of the Protector, is not the last occasion on which Eng- 
land intervened in behalf of the liberties of Protestants. Troubles 
began in France with the revocation of the edict of Nantes ; but 
these broke forth in the rebellion of the Camisards, smarting 
under the revocation. Sheltered by the mountains of the Ce- 
vennes, and nerved by their good cause, with the device, " Liberty 
of Conscience " on their standards, they made head against two 
successive Marshals of France, and perplexed the old age of Louis 
XIY., whose arms were already enfeebled by foreign war. At 
last, through the Mediation of England, the great monarch made 
terms with his Protestant rebels, and the civil war was ended. 
(^Merlin, article, Ministre.') 

Intervention, more often armed than unarmed, showed itself in 
the middle of the last century. All decency was set aside when 
Frederick of Prussia, Catharine of Russia, and Maria Theresa of 
Austria, invaded and partitioned Poland, under the pretext of 
suppressing anarchy. Here was Intervention with a vengeance, 
and on the side of arbitrary power. But such is human incon- 
sistency, there was almost at the same time, anotlier Intervention 
in the opposite direction. It was the Armed Intervention of 
France, followed by that of Spain and Holland, in behalf of 
American Independence. But Spain began Intervention here by an 
offer of Mediation, with a truce, which was accepted by France on 
condition that meanwhile the United States should be independent 
in fact. (^Martens Nouvelles Causes Celebres, Vol. i. p. 434.) 
Then came, hi 1788, the Armed Intervention of Prussia, to sustain 
an illiberal faction in Holland, which w.as followed afterwards by the 
compact between Great Britain, Prussia, and Holland, known as 
the Triple Alliance, which began the business of its copartnership 
by an Armed Intervention to reconcile the insurgent provinces of 
Belgium to the German Emperor and their ancient Constitution. 
As France began to be shaken by domestic troubles. Mediation in 
her affairs was occasionally proposed. Among the papers of 
Burke is a draft of a Memorial written in 1791, in the name of 
the Government, offering what he calls " this healing mediation." 
Then came the vast coalition for Armed Intervention in France to 
put down the Republic. But even this dreary cloud was for a 
moment brightened by a British attempt in Parliament, through 
successive debates, to institute an Intercession for Lafayette, 
immured in the dungeons of European despotism. " It is 
reported," said one of the orators, " that America has solicited 
3 



34 

the liberation of her unfortunate adopted fellow-citizen. Let 
British magnanimity be called in aid of American gratitude, and 
exhibit to mankind a noble proof, that wherever the principles of 
genuine liberty prevail, they never fail to inspire sentimcnls of 
generosity , feelini>-s of hiwianitf/ , and a detestation of oppression.^' 
(Parliamentary History, Yol. xxxi. p. 38 ; Vol. xxxii. p. 1348.) 

Meanwhile France, against which all Europe intervened, played 
her part of Intervention, and the scene was Switzerland. In tlie 
unhappy disputes between the aristocratic and democratic par- 
ties, by which this Republic had been distracted, French Mediation 
had already become chronic, beginning in 1738, wlien it found a 
partial apology in the invitation of several of the Cantons and of 
the government of Geneva ; occurring again in 17t)8, and again 
in 1782. The mountain Republic, breathing the air of Freedom, 
was naturally moved by the convulsions of the French Revolu- 
tion. Civil war ensued, and grew in bitterness. At last, when 
France herself was composed under the powerful arm of the First 
Consul, we find him turning to compose the troubles of Switzer- 
land. He was a military ruler, and always acted under the 
instincts of military power. By an address, dated at the palace 
of St. Cloud, Bonaparte declared that, already for three years the 
Swiss had been slaying each other, and that, if left to themselves, 
they would continue to slay each other for .three years more, 
without coming to any understanding ; that, at first, he had 
resolved not to interfere in their affairs, but that he now changed 
his mind, and announced himself as the Mediator of their diffi- 
culties, proclaiming, confidently, that his Mediation would be 
efficacious as became the great people in whose name he spoke. 
(^Garden Histoire des Traites de Paix, Yol. viii. p. 21.) Deputies 
from the Cantons, together with all the chief citizens, were sum- 
moned to Paris, in order to declare the means of restoring the 
union, securing peace and reconciling all parties. Of course, 
this was Armed Mediation; but Switzerland was weak and France 
was strong, while the declared object was union, peace and recon- 
ciliation. I know not if all this was accomplished, but the civil 
war was stifled, and the constitution was established by what is 
entitled in history, the Act of Mediation. 

From that period down to the present moment, Intervention in 
the internal affairs of other nations has been a prevailing practice, 
now cautiously and peaceably ; now offensively and forcibly. 
Sometimes it was against the rights of men ; sometimes it was in 
their favor. Sometimes England and France stood aloof ; some- 
times they took part. The Congress of Yienna, which undertook 
to settle the map of Europe, organized a universal and perpetual 
Intervention in the interest of monarchical institutions and exist- 
ing dynasties. This compact was renewed at the Congress of 
Aix la Chapelle, in 1818, with the explanatory declaration that 
the five great Powers would never assume jurisdiction over ques- 



35 

tions concerning the rights and interests of another Power, except 
at its request and without inviting such Power to take part in the 
conference. But this concession was obviously adverse to any 
liberal movement. Meanwhile the Holy Alliance was formed 
specially to watch and control the revolutionary tendencies of the 
age ; but into this combination England, to her honor, declined 
to enter. The other Powers were sufficiently active. Austria, 
Russia and Prussia, did not hesitate at the Congress of Laybach, 
in 1840, to institute an Armed Intervention for the suppression of 
liberal principles in Naples ; and again two years later, at the 
Congress of Verona, these same Powers, together with France, 
instituted another Armed Intervention to suppress liberal princi- 
ples in Spain, which ultimately led to the invasion of that king- 
dom and the overthrow of its constitution. France was the bellig- 
erent agent, and would not be turned aside, although the Duke 
of Wellington at Verona and Mr. Canning at home, sought to 
arrest her armies by the Mediation of Great Britain, which Medi- 
ation was directly sought by Spain and directly refused by France. 
The British Government, in admirable letters, composed with 
unsurpassed skill and constituting a noble page of International 
Law, disclaimed for itself and denied to other Powers the right 
to require changes in the internal institutions of Independent 
States, ivit/i the menace of hostile attack in case of refusal; and 
it bravely declared to the Imperial and Royal Interventionists, 
that " so long as the struggles and disturbances of Spain should 
be confined within the circle of her own territory, they could not 
be admitted by the British Government to afford any plea for 
foreign interference," and in still another note it repeated that 
" a menace of direct and imminent danger could alone, in excep- 
tion to the general rule, justify foreign interference.''^ (Philli- 
more's International Law, Vol. iii. pp. 757-66.) These were the 
words of Mr. Canning ; but even Lord Castlereagh, in an earlier 
note, had asserted the same limitation, which at a later day had 
the unqualified support of Lord Grey and also of Lord Aberdeen. 
Justly interpreted they leave no apology for Armed Intervention 
except in a case of direct and imminent danger, when a nation.,, 
like an individual, may be thrown upon the great right of self- 
defence. 

But Great Britain bore testimony by what she did, as well as 
by what she refused to do. Even while resisting the Armed Inter- 
vention of the great conspiracy, her Government intervened some- 
times by Mediation and sometimes by arms. Early in ike contest 
between Spain and her Colonies, she consented on the- invitation 
of Spain to act as Mediator, in the hope of effecting a reconcilia- 
tion ; but Spain declined tlie Mediation which she had invited. 
From 1812 to 1823 Great Britain constantly repeated her offer. 
In the case of Portugal she went further. Under the counsels of 
Mr. Canning, whose speech on the occasion was of the most 



36 

memorable character, she intervened by landing troops at Lisbon ; 
but this Intervention was vindicated by the obligations of treaty. 
Next came the greater instance of Greece, when the Christian 
Powers of Europe intervened to arrest a protracted struggle and 
to save this classic land from Turkish tyranny. Here the first 
step was a pressing invitation from the Greeks to the British and 
French governments for their Mediation with the Ottoman Porte. 
These Powers together with Russia proffered the much desired 
Intervention, which the Greeks at once accepted and the Turks 
rejected. Battle had already raged fiercely, accompanied by bar- 
barous massacre. Without delay, the Allied forces were directed 
to compel the cessation of hostilities, which was accomplished by 
the destruction of the Turkish fleet at Navarino and the occu- 
pation of the Morea by French troops. At last, under the 
continued Mediation of tliese Powers, the independence of Greece 
was recognized by the Ottoman Porte, and another Free State, 
consecrated to Freedom, took its place in the Family of Nations, 
But Mediation in Turkish affairs did not stop here. The example 
of Greece was followed by Egypt^ whose provincial chief Mehemet 
Ali rebelled, and, by a genius for war, succeeded in dispossessing 
the Ottoman Porte not only of Egypt, but of other possessions 
also. This civil war was first arrested by temporary arrangement 
at Kutoyah in 1838, under tlie Mediation of Great Britain and 
France, and, finally ended by an Armed Mediation in 1840, when, 
after elaborate and irritating discussions, which threatened to 
involve Europe, a Treaty was concluded at London between Great 
Britain, Russia, Austria and Prussia, by which the Pacha was 
compelled to relinquish some of his conquests, while he was 
secured in the government of Egypt, as a perpetual vassal of the 
Porte. France dissatisfied with the terms of this adjustment stood 
aloof from the Treaty, which found its apology, such as it had, 
first, in the invitation of the Sultan and secondly, in the desire 
to preserve the integrity of the Turkish empire as essential to the 
balance of power and the peace of Europe ; to which reasons may 
also be added the desire to stop the effusion of blood. 

Even before the Eastern questions were settled, other compli- 
cations had commenced in Western Europe. Belgium, restless 
from the French Revolution of 1830, rose against the House of 
Orange and claimed her Independence. Civil war ensued ; but 
the Great Powers promptly intervened, even to the extent of 
arresting a Dutch army on its march. Beginning with an armis- 
tice, there was a long and fine-spun negotiation, which, assuming 
the guise alternately of a pacific Mediation and of an Armed In- 
tervention, ended at last in the established separation of Belgium 
from Holland, and its Recognition as an Independent Nation. Do 
you ask why Great Britain intervened on this occasion ? Lord 
John Russell, in the course of debate at a subsequent day, declared 
that a special motive was " the establishment of a free constitu- 



37 

tion." (Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, 3d series, Vol. xciii. p. 
417-6G — House of Commons, July 11,1847.) Meanwhile the penin- 
sula of Spain and Portugal was torn by civil war. The regents of 
these two kingdoms respectively appealed to Great Britain and 
France for aid, especially in the expulsion of the pretender Hon 
Carlos from Spain, and the pretender Hon Miguel from Portugal. 
For this purpose the Quadruple Alliance of these Powers was 
formed in 1831. The moral support derived from this Treaty is 
said to have been important ; but Great Britain was compelled to 
provide troops. This Intervention, however, was at tJie solicita- 
tion of the actual s^overnments. Even after the Spanish troubles 
were settled the war still lingered in the sister kingdom, when in 
1817, the Queen appealed to Great Britain, the ancient patron of 
Portugal, to mediate between herself and her insurgent subjects, 
and the task was accepted, in the declared hope of composing the 
difficulties in a just and permanent manner " with all due regard 
to the dignity of the Crown on the one hand and the Constitu- 
tional liberties of the Nation on the other." The insurgents did 
not submit until after military demonstrations. But peace and 
liberty were the two watchwords here. 

Then occurred the European uprising of 1848. France was 
once more a Republic ; but Europe wiser grown did not interfere 
in her affairs, even so much as to write a letter. But the case 
was different with Hungary, whose victorious armies, rad'iant with 
liberty regained, expelled the Austrian power only to be arrested 
by the Armed Intervention of the Russian Czar, who yielded to the 
double pressure of an invitation from Austria and a fear that suc- 
cessful insurrection might extend into Poland. It was left for 
France at the same time in another country, with a strange incon- 
sistency, to play the part which Russia had played in Hungary. 
Rome, which had risen against the temporal power of the Pope, 
and proclaimed the Republic, was occupied by a French army, 
which expelled the republican magistrates, and, though fifteen 
years have already passed since that unhappy act, the occupation 
still continues. From this military Intervention Great Britain 
stood aloof. In a despatch, dated at London January 28, 1849, 
Lord Palmerston has made a permanent record to the honor of his 
country. His words are as follows: " Her Majesty's Government 
would upon every account, and not only upon abstract principle, 
but with reference to the general interests of Europe, and from 
the value which they attach to the maintenance of peace, 5Z7i6*cre/// 
deprecate any attempt to settle the differences between the Pope 
and his subjects by the mililary interference of foreign Poivers." 
(Phillimore, International Law, Vol. ii. p. 676.) But he gave 
further point to the whole position of Great Britain, in contrast 
with France, when he said, " Armed Intervention to assist in retain- 
ing- a bad government ivould be unjustifiable.'''' (Ibid, 448.) Such 
was the declaration of the Lord Palmerston of that day. But 



38 

how much more unjustifiable must be assistance to fovnd a bad 
government, as is now proposed. Tlie British Minister insisted 
that the differences should be accommodated by " the diplomatic 
interposition of friendly Powers," which he declared a much better 
mode of settlement than an authoritative imposition of terms by 
foreign arms. In harmony with this policy Great Britain during 
this same year united with France in proffering Mediation between 
the insurgent Sicilians and the King of Naples, the notorious 
Bomba, in the hope of helping the cause of good government and 
liberal principles. Not disheartened by rebuff, these two govern- 
ments in 1856 united in a friendly remonstrance to the same 
tyrannical sovereign against the harsh system of political arrests 
which he maintained, and against his cruelty to good citizens thrust 
without any trial into the worst of prisons. The advice was 
indignantly rejected, and the two governments that gave it at 
once withdrew their Ministers from Naples. The sympathy of 
Russia was on the wrong side, and Prince Gortschakoff, while 
admitting that " as a consequence of friendly forethought, one 
government might give advice to another," declared in a circular 
that " to endeavor by threats or a menacing demonstration, to 
obtain from the King of Naples concessions in the internal affairs 
of his government, is a violent usurpation of his authority, and 
an open declaration of the strong over the weak." This was 
practically answered by Lord Clarendon, speaking for Great Brit- 
ain at the Congress of Paris, when, admitting the principle that 
no government has the right to intervene in the internal affairs of 
other nations, he declared that there were cases where an excep- 
tion to this rule becomes equally a right and a duty ; that peace 
must not be broken, but that there was no peace without justice, 
and that, therefore, the Congress must let the King of Naples 
know its desire for an amelioration of his system of government, 
and must demand of him an amnesty for political offenders suffer- 
ing without a trial. This language was bold beyond the practice 
of diplomacy ; but the Intervention which it proposed was on the 
side of humanity. 

But I must draw this part of the discussion to a close, although 
the long list of instances is not yet exhausted. Even while I 
speak, we hear of Intervention by England and France, in the 
civil war between the Emperor of China and his subjects ; and 
also in that other war between the Emperor of Russia on the one 
side and the Poles whom he claims as subjects on the other side ; 
but with this difference, that, in China these Powers have taken 
the part of the existing government, while in Poland they have 
intervened against the existing government. In the face of posi- 
tive declarations of neutrality the British and French Admirals 
have united their forces with the Chinese ; but thus far in Poland 
although there has been no declaration of neutrality, the Inter- 
yention has been unarmed. In both these instances we witness 



39 

tlie same tendency, directed, it may be, by the interests or preju- 
dices of the time, and so far as it has yet proceeded, it is at least 
in Poland on the side of liberal institutions. But alas ! for 
human consistency — the French Emperor is now intervening in 
Mexico with armies and navies, to build a throne for an Austrian 
Archduke. 

British Intervention against Slavery. 

But there is one long-continued Intervention by Great Britain, 
which speaks now with controlling power ; and it is on this ac- 
count that I hav^e reserved it for the close of what I have to say 
on this head. Though not without original shades of dark, it has 
for more than half a century been a shinnig example to the civil- 
ized world. I refer to that Intervention against Slavery, which 
from its first adoption has been so constant and brilliant as to 
make us forget the earlier Intervention for Slavery, when, for 
instance. Great Britain at the peace of Utrecht intervened to ex- 
tort the detestable privilege of supplying slaves to Spanish Amer- 
ica at the rate of 4,800 yearly for the space of thirty years, and 
then again at the peace of Aix la Chapelle higgled for a yet longer 
sanction to this ignoble Intervention ; nay it almost makes us 
forget the kindred Intervention, at once most sordid and criminal, 
by which this Power counteracted all efforts for the prohibition of 
the slave-trade even in its own colonies, and thus helped to fasten 
Slavery upon Virginia and Carolina. The abolition of the slave- 
trade by act of Parliament in 1807 was the signal for a change oi 
history. 

But curiously, it was the whites who gained the first fruits of 
this change by a triumphant Intervention for the suppression of 
Christian Slavery in the Barbary States. The old hero of Acre, 
Sir Sidney Smith, released from his long imprisonment in France, 
sought to organize a " holy league " for this Intervention ; the 
subject was discussed at the Congress of Vienna ; and the agents 
of Spain and Portugal, anxious for the punishment of their pirat- 
ical neighbors argued that, because Great Britain had abolished 
for itself the traffic in African slaves, therefore it must see that 
whites were no longer enslaved in the Barbary States. The argu- 
ment was less logical than humane. But Great Britain under- 
took the work. With a fleet complete at all points, consisting of 
five line-of-battle ships, five heavy frigates, four bomb-vessels, and 
five gun-brigs, Lord Exmouth approached Algiers, where he was 
joined by a considerable Dutch fleet, anxious to take part in this 
Intervention. " If force must be resorted to " said the Admiral 
in his General Orders, " we have the consolation of knowing that 
we fight in the sacred cause of humanity and cannot fail of suc- 
cess," A single day was enough — with such a force in such a 
cause. The formidable castles of the great Slave-monger were 



40 

battered to pieces, and he was compelled to sign a Treaty, con- 
firmed under a salute of twenty-one guns, which in its first 
article stipulated " The Abolition of Christian Slavery forever." 
Glorious and beneficent Intervention ! — Not inferior to that re- 
nowned instance of antiquity, where the Carthaginians were 
required to abolish the practice of sacrificing their own children ; 
a Treaty which has been called the noblest of history, because it 
was stipulated in favor of human nature. The Admiral, who 
had thus triumphed, was hailed as an Emancipator. He received 
a new rank in the peerage, and a new blazonry on his coat of 
arms. The rank is of course continued in his family, and on 
their shield, in perpetual memory of this great transaction, is still 
borne a C/iristian slave holding aloft the cross and dropping- his 
broken fetters. But the personal satisfactions of the Admiral 
were more than rank or heraldry. In his despatch to the Gov- 
ernment, describing the battle and written at the time, he says : 
" To have been one of the humble instruments in the hands of 
Divine Providence for bringing to reason a ferocious government 
and destroying forever the insufferable and horrid system of 
Christian Slavery, can never cease to be a source of delight and 
heartfelt comfort to every individual happy enough to be employed 
in it." (Osier's Life of Exraouth, pp. 297, 334, 432.) 

But I have said too much with regard to an instance, which, 
though beautiful and important, may be regarded only as a paren- 
thesis in. the grander and more extensive Intervention against 
African Slavery, which was already organizing, destined at last to 
embrace the whole Human Family. Even before Wilberforce 
triumphed in Parliament, Great Britain intervened with Napo- 
leon, in 180G, to induce liim to join in the abolition of the slave- 
trade ; but he flatly refused. Wliat France would not then yield, 
was extorted from Portugal in 1810 ; from Sweden sbortly after- 
wards ; and from Denmark in 1814. An ineffectual attempt was 
made to enlist Spain, even by the temptation of pecuniary subsi- 
dies ; and also to enlist the restored monarch of France, Louis 
XVIII. even by the offer of a sum of money outright or the 
cession of a West India Island, in consideration of the desired 
abolition. Had gratitude to a benefactor prevailed, these Powers 
could not have resisted ; but it was confessed by Lord Castlereagh, 
in the House of Commons, that there was a distrust of the Brit- 
ish Government " even among the better classes of people," who 
thought that its zeal in this behalf was prompted by a desire to 
injure the French Colonies and commerce, rather than by benevo- 
lence. But he was more successful with Portugal, which Power 
was induced, by pecuniary equivalents, to execute a Supplemen- 
tary Treaty in January, 1815. This was followed by the declara- 
tion of the Congress of Vienna, on motion of Lord Castlereagh, 
15th February, 1815, denouncing the African slave-trade " as 
inconsistent with the principles of humanity and universal benev- 



41 

olence." Meanwhile Napoleon returned from Elba, and what the 
British Intervention failed to accomplish with the Bourbon Mon- 
arch, and what the Emperor had once flatly refused, was now 
spontaneously done by him, doubtless in the liope of conciliat- 
ing British sentiment. His hundred days of power were signal- 
ized by an ordinance abolishing the slave-trade in France and her 
colonies. Louis XVIII. once again restored by British arms and 
with the shadow of Waterloo upon France, could not do less than 
ratify this imperial ordinance by a royal assurance that " the 
traffic was henceforth forever forbidden to all the subjects of his 
most Christian Majesty." Holland came under the same influ- 
ence and accepted the restitution of her colonies, except the Cape 
of Good Hope and Guiana, on condition of the entire abolition of 
the slave-trade in the restored colonies and also everywhere else 
beneath her flag. Spain was the most indocile ; but this proud 
monarchy, under whose auspices the African slave-trade first came 
into being, at last yielded. By the Treaty of Madrid, of 22d 
September, 1817, extorted by Great Britain, it stipulated the 
immediate abolition of the trade north of the Equator, and 
also, after 1820, its abolition everywhere, in consideration of 
<£100,000, the price of Freedom, to be paid by the other contract- 
ing party. In vindication of this Intervention, Wilberforce declared 
in Parliament that, " the grant to Spain would be more than 
repaid to Great Britain in commercial advantages by the opening 
of a great continent to British industry," — all of which was 
impossible if the slave-trade was allowed to continue under the 
Spanish flag. 

At the Congress of Aix la Chapelle in 1818, and of Verona in 
1822, Great Britain continued her system of Intervention against 
Slavery. Her primacy in this cause was recognized by European 
Powers. It was the common remark of continental publicists 
that she " made the cavise her own." (1 Phillimore Interna- 
tional Law, 330.) One of them portrays her vividly " since 1810 
waging incessant war against the principle of the slave-trade, and 
by this crusade, undertaken in the name of Humanity, making 
herself the declared protectress of the African race." (^Cvssi/, 
Causes Celebres de Droit Maritime, Vol. i. p. 157, Vol. ii. pp. 
362, 63.) These are the words of a French authority. Accord- 
ing to him, it is nothing less than " an incessant war " and a 
" crusade," which she has waged and the position which she has 
achieved is that of " Protectress of the African race." In this 
character she has not been content with imposing her magnani- 
mous system upon the civilized world, but she has carried it 
among the tribes and chiefs of Africa, who by this omnipresent 
Intervention, were summoned to renounce a barbarous and crim- 
inal custom. By a Parliamentary Report, it appears that in 
1850, there were twenty-four treaties in force, between Great 
Britain and foreign civilized Powers, for the suppression of the 



42 

slave-trade, and also forty-two similar treaties between Great 
Britain and native chiefs of Africa. 

But this Intervention was not only by treaties ; it was also by 
correspondence and circulars. And here I approach a part of the 
subject which illustrates the vivacity of this Intervention. All 
British ministers and consuls were so many pickets on constant 
guard in the out-posts where they resided. They were held to 
every service by which the cause could be promoted, even to 
translating and printing documents against the slave-trade, espe- 
cially in countries where unhappily it was still pursued. There 
was the Pope's Bull of 1839, which Lord Palmerston did not hesi- 
tate to transmit for this purpose to his agents in Cuba, Brazil, 
and even in Turkey, some of whom were unsuccessful in their 
efforts to obtain its publication, although, curiously enough, it 
was published in Turkey. (^Parliamentary Papers, 1841, Vol, xxx. 
Slave Trade, Class B, p. 34, 197, 223 ; Class C, p. 73, Class D, 
p. 15.) 

Such a zeal could not stop at the abolition of the traffic- 
Accordingly Great Britain, by Act of Parliament in 1834 enfran. 
chised all the slaves in her own possessions, and thus again 
secured to herself the primacy of a lofty cause. The Inter- 
vention was now openly declared to be against Slavery itself. 
But it assumed its most positive character while Lord Palmerston 
was Foreign Secretary, and I say this sincerely to his great honor. 
Throughout his long life, among all the various concerns in which 
he has acted, there is nothing which will be remembered hereafter 
with such gratitude. By his diplomacy her Majesty's Govern- 
ment constituted itself into a vast Abolition Society with the 
whole world for its field. It was in no respect behind the famous 
World's Convention against Slavery, held at London in June, 
1840, with Thomas Clarkson, the pioneer Abolitionist, as Presi- 
dent ; for the strongest declarations of this Convention were 
adopted expressly by Lord Palmerston as " the sentiments of her 
Majesty's Government," and communicated officially to all British 
functionaries in foreign lands. The Convention declared " the 
utter injustice of Slavery in all its forms ; and the evil it inflicted 
upon its miserable victims; and the necessity of employing every 
means, moral, pacific, and religious, for its complete abolition — 
an object most dear to the members of the Convention, and for 
the consummation of which they are especially assembled." 
These words became the words of the British Government, and, 
in circular letters, were sent over the world. (^Parliameyitary 
Papers, 1841, Vol. xxx. Class B, p. 33.) 

But it was not enough to declare the true principles. They 
must be enforced. Spain and Portugal hung back. The Secre- 
tary of the Anti-Slavery Society was sent " to endeavor to create 
in these countries a public feeling in favor of the abolition of 
Slavery," and the British Minister at Lisbon was desired by Lord 



43 

Palraerston " to afford all the assistance and protection in his power 
for promoting the object of his journey." (^Ibid, p. 128.) British 
officials in foreign countries sometimes back-slided. This was 
corrected by another circular addressed to all the four quarters 
of the globe, setting forth, " that it would be unfitting that any 
officer, holding an appointment under the British Government 
should, either directly or indirectly, hold or be interested in slave 
property." The Parliamentary Papers, which attest the univer- 
sality of this instruction, show the completeness with which it was 
executed. The consul at Rio Janeiro, in slave-holding Brazil, 
had among his domestics three negro slaves, " one a groom and 
the other a waiter and a woman he was forced to hire as a nurse 
to his children;" but he discharged them at once under the Anti- 
Slavery discipline of the British Foreign office, and Lord Palmers- 
ton in a formal despatch " expresses his satisfaction." (^Ibid, 
1842, Vol. xlviii. Class B, p. 732.) In Cuba, at the time of the 
reception there was not a single resident officer holding under its 
British Crown " who was entirely free from the charge of counte- 
nancing Slavery." But only a few days afterwards, it was 
officially reported, that there was " not a single British officer 
residing there who had not relinquished or was not at least 
preparing to relinquish the odious practice." (^Ibid, p. 206.) 
This was quick work. Tiius was the practice according to the 
rule. Every person, holding an office under the British govern- 
ment, was constrained to set his face against Slavery, and the vmij 
was by having nothing' to do ivith it, even in emploijing or hiring 
the slave of another ; nothing, directly or indirectly. 

But Lord Palmerston, acting in the name of the British Gov- 
ernment, did not stop with changing British officials into practi- 
cal Abolitionists whenever they were in foreign countries. He 
sought to enlist other European governments in the same policy, 
and to this end requested them to forbid all their functionaries, 
residing in slave-holding communities, to be interested in slave 
property or in any holding or hiring of slaves. Denmark for a 
moment hesitated, from an unwillingness to debar its officers in 
slave countries from acting according to the laws where they 
resided, when the minister at once cited in support of his request, 
the example of Belgium, Holland, Sweden, Naples and Portugal, 
all of which without delay had yielded to this British Interven- 
tion ; and Denmark ranged herself in the lisi?. {Ibid, p. 42. 
Vol. xliv. Class C, pp. 7-15.) Nor was this indefatigable Propa- 
ganda confined in its operations to the Christian Powers. With a 
sacred pertinacity it reached into distant Mohammedan regions, 
where Slavery was imbedded not only in tlie laws, but in the 
habits, the social system, and the very life of the people, and 
called upon the Government to act against it. No impediment 
stood in the way ; no prejudice, national or religious. To the 
Schah of Persia, ruling a vast, outlying slave empire, Lord Pal- 



44 

merston announced the desire of the British Government " to see 
the condition of Slavery abolished in every part of the world ; " 
" that it conceived much good might be accompHshed even in- 
Mohammedan countries by steady perseverance and by never omit- 
ting to take advantage of favorable opportunities," and " that the 
Schah would be doing a thing extremely acceptable to the British 
Government and nation if he would issue a decree making it 
penal for a Persian to purchase slaves." (Ibid, 1842, Vol. xliv. 
Class D, p. 70.) To the Sultan of Turkey, whose mother was a 
slave, whose wives were all slaves, and whose very counsellors, 
generals and admirals were originally slaves, he made a similar 
appeal, and he sought to win the dependent despot by reminding 
him that only in this way could he hope for that good will which 
was so essential to his government; " that the continued support 
of Great Britain will for some years to come be an object of 
importance to the Porte ; that this support cannot be g-iv en effect- 
ually unless the sentiments and opinions of the majoriti/ of the 
British nation shall be favorable to the Turkish Government, and 
that the ivhole of the British nation unanimouslij desire beyond 
almost any thing else to put an end to the practice of making 
slaves." (Ibid, 1841, Yol. xxx. Class D, pp. 15-18 ; also. Ibid, 
1842, Vol. xliv. Class D, p. 73.) Such at that time was the voice 
of the British people. Since Cromwell pleaded for the Vaudois, 
no nobler voice had gone forth. The World's Convention against 
Slavery saw itself transfigured, while platform speeches were trans- 
fused into diplomatic notes. The Convention, earnest for Uni- 
versal Emancipation, declared that " the friendly interposition of 
Great Britain could be employed for no nobler purpose ; " and, as 
if to crown its work, in an address to Lord Palmerston, humbly 
and earnestly implored his lordship " to use his high authority for 
connecting tbe overthrow of slavery with the consolidation of 
peace ; " and all these words were at once adopted in foreign 
despatches as expressing the sentiments of Her Majesty's Gov- 
ernment. (Ibid, 1841, Vol. xxx. Class D, pp. 15, 16.) Better 
watch-words there could not be, nor any more worthy of the 
British name. There can be no consolidation of peace vnlhout 
the overlhroiv of Slavery. This is as true now as when first 
uttered. Therefore is Great Britain still bound to her original 
faith ; nor can she abandon the cause of which she was the 
declared Protectress without the betrayal of Peace, as well as the 
betrayal of Liberty. 

But even now while I speak this same conspicuous fidelity to a 
sacred cause is announced by the recent arrivals from Europe. 
The ship canal across the Isthmus of Suez, first attempted by the 
early Pharaohs, and at last undertaken by French influence under 
the auspices of the Pacha of Egypt, is most zealously opposed by 
Great Britain — for the declared reason, that in its construction 
" forced labor " is employed, which this Power cannot in con- 



45 

science sanction. Not even to complete this vast improvement, 
bringing the East and the West near togetlier, for which mankind 
has waited thronghout long centuries, will Great Britain depart 
from the rule which she has so gloriously declared. Slavery is 
wrong ; therefore it cannot be employed. The canal must stop 
if it cannot be built witliout " forced labor." 

General Principles applicable to Intervention. 

And here I close the historic instances which illustrate the 
right and practice of Foreign Intervention. The whole subject 
will be seen in these instances, teaching clearly what to avoid 
and what to follow. In this way the Law of Nations, like history, 
gives its best lessons. But, for the sake of plainness, I now 
gather up some of the conclusions. 

Foreign Intervention is armed or unarmed, although sometimes 
the two are not easily distinguishable. An unarmed Intervention 
may have in it the menace of arms, or it may be war in disguise. 
If this is the case, it must be treated accordingly. 

Armed Intervention is war and nothing less. Of course it can 
be vindicated only as war, and it must be resisted as war. 
Believing as I do, most profoundly, that war can never be a game, 
but must always be a crime when it ceases to be a duty ; a crime 
to be shunned if it be not a duty to be performed swiftly and 
surely ; and that a nation, like an individual, is not permitted to 
take the sword, except in just self-defence — I find the same lim- 
itation in Armed lnterventi6n, which becomes unjust invasion just 
in proportion as it departs from just self-defence. Under this 
head is naturally included all that Intervention which is moved 
by a tyrannical or intermeddling spirit, because such Intervention, 
whatever may be its professions, is essentially hostile ; as wlicn 
Russia, Prussia and Austria, partitioned Poland ; when the Holy 
Alliance intermeddled everywhere, and menaced even America ; 
or when Russia intervened to crush the independence of Hungary, 
or France to crush the Roman Republic. AH such Intervention 
is illegal, inexcusable and scandalous. Its vindication can be 
found only in the effrontery that might makes right. 

Unarmed Intervention is of a different character. If sincerely 
unarmed, it may be regarded as obtrusive, but not hostile. It 
may assume the form of Mediation, or the proffer of good offices, 
at the invitation of both parties, or, in the case of civil war, at 
the invitation of the original authority. With such invitation, 
this Intervention is proper and honorable. Without such invita- 
tion it is of doubtful character. But if known to be contrray to 
the desires of both parties, or to the desires of the original 
authority in a distracted country, it becomes offensive and iuad- 



46 

missible, unless ohviously on the side of Huma?i Rights, when 
the act of Intervention takes its character from the cause in which 
it is made. But it must not be forgotten that, in the case of a 
civil war, any Mediation^ or indeed, any proposition which does 
not enjoin submission to the original authority, is in its nature 
adverse to that authority, for it assumes to a certain extent the 
separate existence of the other party, and secui-es for it temporary 
immunity and opportunity, if not independence. Congress, 
therefore, was rigbt in declaring to Foreign Powers, that any 
renewed effort of mediation in our affairs will be regarded as an 
unfriendly act. 

There is anotlier case of unarmed Intervention, which I cannot 
criticise. It is where a nation intercedes or interposes in favor 
of Human Rights, or to secure the overthrow of some enormous 
wrong, as where Cromwell pleaded, with noble intercession, for 
the secluded Protestants of the Alpine valleys ; where Great 
Britain and France declared their sympathy witli the Greeks 
struggling for Independence, and where Great Britain alone, 
by an untiring diplomacy, set herself against Slavery everywhere 
throughout the world. 

The whole lesson on this head may be summed up briefly. All 
Intervention in the internal affairs of another nation is contrary 
to law and reason, and can be vindicated only by overruling 
necessity. If you intervene by war, then must there be the 
necessity of self-defence. If you intervene by Mediation or Inter- 
cession, then must you be able to speak in behalf of civilization 
endangered or human nature insulted. But there is no Power 
which is bound to this humane policy so absolutely as England ; 
especially is there none which is so fixed beyond the possibility of 
retreat or change in its opposition to Slavery, whatever shape it 
may assume — whether it be the animating principle of a nation — 
the "forced labor" of a multitude — or even the service of a 
solitary domestic. 

[III.] 

v/ Inteevention by Recognition. 

There is a species of Foreign Intervention, which stands by 
itself, and has its own illustrations. Therefore, I speak of it by 
itself. It is where a Foreign Power undertakes to acknowledge 
the independence of a colony or province which has renounced its 
original allegiance, and it may be compendiously called Interven- 
tion by Recognition. Recognition alone is strictly applicable to 
the act of the original government, renouncing all claim of alle- 
giance and at last acknowledging the Independence which has 
been in dispute. But it is an act of Intervention only where a 
Foreign Government steps between the two parties. Of course, 
the original government is so far master of its position, that it may 



47 

select its own time in making this Recognition. But the question 
arises at what time and under what circumstances can this Recog- 
nition be made by a Foreign Power. It is obvious that a Recogni- 
tion proper at one time and under special circumstances would 
not be proper at another and under different circumstances. 
Mr. Canning said with reference to Spanish America, that " if he 
piqued himself upon any thing it was upon the subject of time,'' 
and he added that there were two ways of proceeding, " one went 
recklessly and with a hurried course to the object, which, though 
soon reached, might be almost as soon lost, and the other was by 
a course so strictly guarded that no principle was violated and 
no offence given to other Powers." (Hansard's Pai'liamcntary 
Debates, 2d ISeries, Vol. xii. p. 7, 8.) These are words of wise 
statesmanship, and they present the practical question which 
must occur in every case of Recognition. What condition of the 
controversy will justify this Intervention ? 

And here again the whole matter can be best explained by 
historic instances. The earliest case is that of Switzerland wliich 
led the way, as long ago as 1307, by breaking off from the House 
of Hapsburg, whose original cradle was in a Svs^iss Canton. But 
Austria did not acknowledge the Independence of the Republic 
until tlie peace of Westphalia, more than three centuries and a 
half after the struggle began under William Tell. Meanwhile 
the Cantons had lived through the vicissitudes of war foreign and 
domestic, and had formed treaties with other Powers, including 
the Pope. Before Swiss Independence was acknowledged, the 
Dutch conflict began under William of Orange. Smarting under 
intolerable grievances and with a price set upon the head of their 
illustrious Stadholder, the United Provinces of the Netherlands 
in 1572 renounced the tyrannical sovereignty of Philip II., and 
declared themselves independent. In the history of Freedom this 
is an important epoch. They were Protestants, battling for rights 
denied, and Queen Elizabeth of England, who was the head of 
Protestantism, acknowledged their Independence and shortly after- 
wards gave to it military aid. The contest continued, sustained 
on the side of Spain by the genius of Parma and Spinola, and on 
the side of the infant Republic by the youthful talent of Maurice, 
son of the great Stadholder ; nor did Foreign Powers stand aloof. 
In 1594, Scotland, which was Protestant also, under James YI., 
afterwards the first James of England, treated with the insurgent 
Provinces as successors of the Houses of Burgundy and Austria, 
and in 1596 France also entered into alliance with them. But 
the claims of Spain seemed undying ; for it was not until the 
peace of Westphalia, nearly eighty years after the revolt, and 
nearly seventy years after tlie Declaration of Independence, that 
this Power consented to the Recognition of Dutch Independence. 
Nor does this example stand alone even at that early day. 
Portugal in 1610 also broke away from Spain and declared herself 



4S 

independeut, under the Duke of Brasranza as Kins. A year bad 
scarcely passed when Charles I. of England negotiated a treaty 
vith the new sovereign. The contest had already ceased but not 
the claim : for it was only after twenty-six years that Spain made 
this other Eecognition, 

Traversing the Atlantic Ocean in space and more than a century 
in time. I come to the next historic instance which is so inter- 
esting to us all. while as a precedent it dominates the whole 
question. The long discord between the colonies and the mother 
country broke forth in blood on the 19th April. 1775. Indepen- 
dence was declared on the 4th July, 1776. Battles ensued: Tren- 
ton. Princeton, Brandy wine, Saratoga, followed by the winter of 
Valley Forge. The contest was yet undecided, when on the 6th Feb- 
ruary. 177S. France entered into a Treaty of Amity and Commerce 
"with the United States, containing, among other things, a Recogni- 
tion of their Independence, with mutual stipulations between the 
two parties to protect the commerce of the other, by convoy on 
the ocean, "against all attacks, force and violence:"' QStatides at 
Lar^e, Vol. viii. p. lo."") and this Treaty on the loth March was 
communicated to the British Government by the French Ambas- 
sador at London, with a diplomatic note in which the United 
States are described as *'in full possession of the Independence 
pronounced by the Act of 4th July, 1776," and the British Gov- 
ernment is warned that the King of France, '•in order to protect 
effectively the legitimate commerce of his subjects and to sus- 
tain the honor of his flag, has taken further measures with the 
United States.'" — QJIartens Noitvelies Causes Celebres. Vol. i. p. 
406.) A further Treaty of Alliance, whose declared object was 
the maintenance of the Lidependence of the United States, had 
been signed on the same day ; but this was not communicated ; 
nor is there any evidence that it was known to the British Gk)veru- 
ment at the time. The communication of the other was enough : 
for it was in itself an open Eecognition of the new Power, with a 
promise of protection to its commerce on the ocean, irhile the tear 
teas yet flagrant between the tiro parties. As such it must be 
regarded as an Armed Eecognition, constituting in itself a bellig- 
erent act — aggravated and explained by the circumstances under 
"which it was made — the warning, in the nature of a menace, 
by which it was accompanied — the clandestine preparations by 
"which it was preceded — and the corsairs to cruise against British 
commerce, which for some time had been allowed to swarm 
under the American flag from French ports. It was so accepted 
by the British Government. The British Minister was summa- 
rily withdrawn from Paris ; all French vessels in British harbors 
were seized, and on the 17th March a message from the king 
was brought down to Parliament, which was in the nature of a 
declaration of war against France. In this declaration there 
■was no allusion to auv thins but the Treatv of Amitv and Com- 



49 

merce, officially communicated by the French Ambassador, which 
was denounced by his majesty as an " unprovoked and unjust 
aggression on the honor of his crown and the essential interests 
of his kingdoms, contrarij to the laiu of nations, and injurious to 
the rights of every Foreig-n Poivcr in Europe.^' Only three days 
later, on the 21st March, the Commissioners of the United States 
were received by the King of France, in solemn audience, with 
all the pomp and ceremony accorded by the Court' of Versailles 
to the representatives of Sovereign Powers. War ensued between 
France and Great Britain on land and sea, in which Holland and 
Spain afterwards took ])art against Great Britain. With such 
allies a just cause prevailed. Great Britain by Provisional 
Articles, signed at Paris 30th November, 1782, acknowledged the 
United States " to be free, sovereign and independent," and 
declared the boundaries thereof. 

The success of colonial Independence was contagious, and the 
contest for it presented another historic instance more discussed 
and constituting a precedent, if possible, more interesting still. 
This was when the Spanish Colonies in America, following the north- 
ern example, broke away from the mother country and declai-ed 
themselves independent. The contest began as early as 1810 ; 
but it was long continued and extended over an immense region — 
from New Mexico and California in the North to Cape Horn in 
the South — washed by two vast oceans — traversed by mighty rivers 
and divided by lofty mountains — fruitful in silver — capped with 
snow and shooting with volcanic fire. At last the United States 
satisfied that the ancient power of Spain had practically ceased to 
exist, beyond a reasonable chance of restoration, and that the 
contest was ended, acknowledged the Independence of Mexico and 
five other provinces. But this act was approached only after fre- 
quent debate in Congress, where Henry Clay took an eminent 
part, and after most careful consideration in the cabinet, where 
John Quincy Adams, as Secretary of State, shed upon the ques- 
tion all the light of his unsurpassed knowledge, derived from 
long practice, as well as from laborious study, of International 
Law. Tlie judgment on this occasion must be regarded as an 
authority. President Munroe in a Special Message, on the 8th 
March, 1822 — twelve years after the war began — called the atten- 
tion of Congress to the state of the contest which he said "had 
now reached such a stage and been attended with such decisive 
success on the part of the provinces, that it merits the most 
profound consideration whether their right to the rank of inde- 
pendent nations, with all the advantages incident to it, in their 
intercourse with the United States, is not complete." After 
setting forth the de facto condition of things, he proceeded ; 
" Thus it is manifest that all these provinces are not only in 
the full enjoyment of their independence, but, considering the 
state of the ivar and other circumstances, that there is not the 

4 



50 

most remole prospect of their beinff deprived of it^ In proposing 
their Recognition the President decUired that it was done " under 
a thorough conviction that it is in strict accord with the hiw of 
nations," and further that " it is not contemphited to change 
thereby, in the slightest manner, our friendly relations with either 
of the parties." In accordance with this recommendation Con- 
gress authorized the Recognition. Two years later, the same 
thing was done by Great Britain, after much debate diplomatic 
and parliamentary. No case of International duty has been illus- 
trated by a clearer eloquence, an ampler knowledge or a purer 
■wisdom. The despatches were written by Mr. Canning, and 
upheld by him in Parliament; but Lord Liverpool took part in the 
discussion — succinctly declaring, that there could be no right to 
Recognition " while the contest was actually going on," a conclusion 
which was cautiously but strongly enforced by Lord Lansdowne 
and nobly vindicated in an Oration, reviewing the whole subject, 
by that great publicist Sir James Mackintosh. (^Mackintosh'' s 
Works Vol. iii. p. 438.) All inclined to Recognition but admitted 
that it could not take place so long' as the contest continued ; and 
that there must be " such a contest as exhibits some equality of 
force, so that if the combatants were left to themselves, the issue ^ 
would be in some degree doubtful." But the Spanish strength 
throughout the whole continent was reduced to a single castle in 
Mexico, an island on the coast of Chili, and a small army in 
Upper Peru, while in Buenos Ayres no Spanish soldier had set 
foot for fourteen years. "Is this a contest" said Mackintosh 
" approaching to equality ? Is it sufficient to render the inde- 
pendence of such a country doubtful ? Does it deserve the name 
of a contest ? " It was not until 1825 that Great Britain was so 
far satisfied as to acknowledge this Independence. France fol- 
lowed in 1830 ; and Castilian pride relented in 1832, twenty-two 
years from the first date of the contest. 

The next instance is that of Greece, which declared itself Inde- 
pendent January 27, 1822. After a contest of more than five 
years, with alternate success and disaster, the Great Powers inter- 
vened forcibly in 1827 ; but the final Recognition was postponed 
till May 1832. Then came the instance of Belgium, which 
declared itself Independent in October, 1830, and was promptly 
recognized by the Great Powers who intervened forcibly for this 
purpose. The last instance is Texas, which declared its Indepen- 
dence in December, 1835, and defeated the Mexican Army under 
Santa Anna, making him prisoner, in 1836. The power of Mexico 
seemed to be overthrown, but Andrew Jackson, who was then 
President of the United States, in his Message of December 21, 
1836, laid down the rule of caution and justice on such an occa- 
sion, as follows ; " The acknowledgment of a new State as inde- 
pendent and entitled to a place in the family of nations, is at all 
times an act of great delicacy and responsibility ; but more 



61 

especially so when such state has forcibly separated itself from 
another, of which it had formed an integral part and which still 
claims dominion over it. A premature rcco^'nUion under these 
circumstances, if not looked npon as justifiable cause of loar, is 
always liable to be regarded as a proof of an unfriendly spirit." 
And he concluded by proposing that our country should " keep 
aloof" until the quesUon was decided " beyond cavil or dispute." 
During the next year — when the contest had practically ceased 
and only the claim remained — this new Power was acknowledged 
by the United States, who were followed in 1840 by Great Britain, 
France and Belgium. Texas was annexed to the United States 
in 1845, but at this time Mexico had not joined in the general 
recognition. 

' Principles Applicable to Recog-nilion. 

Such are the historic instances which illustrate Intervention by 
Recognition. As in other cases of Intervention, the Recognition 
may be armed or unarmed, with an intermediate case, where the 
Recognition may seem to be unarmed when in reality it is 
armed, as when France simply announced its Recognition of the 
Independence of the United States, and at the same time prepared 
to maintain it by war. 

Armed Recognition is simply Recognition by Coercion. It is a 
belligerent act constituting war, and it can be vindicated only as 
war. No nation will undertake it, unless ready to assume all the 
responsibilities of war, as in the recent cases of Greece and Bel- 
gium, not to mention the Recognition of the United States by 
France. But an attempt, under the guise of Recognition, to 
coerce the dismemberment or partition of a country is in its 
nature offensive beyond ordinary war ; especially when the coun- 
try to be sacrificed is a Republic and the plotters against it are 
crowned heads. Proceeding from the consciousness of brutal 
power, such an attempt is an insult to mankind. If Armed 
Recognition at any time can find apology, it will be only ivhere 
it is sincerely made for the 'protection of Human Fdghts. It 
would be hard to condemn that Intervention which saved Greece 
to Freedom. 

Unarmed Recognition is where a Foreign Power acknowledges 
in some pacific form the Independence of a colony or province 
against the claim of its original Government. Although exclud 
ing all idea of coercion, yet it cannot be uniformly justified. 

No Recognition where the Contest is still pending. 

And here we are brought to that question of " time," on which 
Mr. Canning so pointedly piqued himself, and to which President 
Jackson referred, when he suggested that " a premature Recog- 
nition " might be " looked upon as justifiable cause of war."* 



c^ 



62 

Nothing is more clear than that Recognition may be favored at 
one time, while it must be rejected at another. So far as it 
assumes to ascertain Rights instead of Facts, or to anticipate 
the result of a contest, it is wrongful. No Nation can under- 
take to sit in judgment on the rights of another Nation with- 
out its consent. Therefore, it cannot declare that de jure a 
colony or province is eulitled to Independence ; but from the 
necessity of the case and that international intercourse may not 
fail, it may ascertain the facts, carefully and wisely, and, on 
the actual evidence, it may declare that de facto the colony or 
province appears to be in possession of Independence, which 
means, first, that the original Government is dispossessed beyond 
the possibility of recovery, and secondly, that the new Govern- 
ment has achieved that reasonable stability with fixed limits 
which gives assurance of a solid Power. All of this is simply 
fact and nothing more. But just in proportion as a Foreign 
Nation anticipates the fact, or imagines the fact, or substitutes its 
own passions for the fact, it transcends the well-defined bounds 
of International Law. Without the fact of Independence, posi- 
tive and fixed, there is nothing but a claim. Now nothing can be 
clearer than tliat while the terrible litigation is still pending and 
tXiQ Trial by Battle, to which appeal has been made, is yet unde- 
cided, the fact of Independence cannot exist. There is only a 
paper Independence, which though reddened with blood, is no 
better than a paper empire or a paper blockade, and any pretended 
Recognition of it is a wrongful Intervention, inconsistent with a 
just neutrality, since the obvious effect must be to encourage 
the insurgent party. Such has been the declared judgment of 
our country and its practice, even under circumstances tempting 
in another direction, and such also was the declared judgment 
and practice of Great Britain with reference to Spanish America. 

The conclusion, then, is clear. In order to justify a Recogni- 
tion it must appear beyond doubt that de facto the contest is 
finished, and that de facto the new government is established 
secure within fixed limits. These are conditions irrecedent 
which cannot be avoided, without an open offence to a friendly 
Power, and an open violation of that International Law which is 
the guardian of the peace of the world. It will be for us shortly 
to inquire if there be not another condition precedent, which 
civilization in this age will require. 

Do you ask now if Foreign Powers can acknowledge our Slave- 
monger embryo as an Independent Nation ? There is madness in 
the thought. A Recognition, accompanied by the breaking of the 
blockade would be war — impious war — against the United States, 
where Slave-mongers would be the allies and Slavery the inspira- 
tion. Of all wars in history none more accursed ; none more 
sure to draw down upon its authors the judgment alike of God 
and man. But the thought of Recognition — under existing cir- 



53 

cumstances — while the contest is still pending — even without any 
breaking of the blockade or attempted coercion, is a Satanic 
absurdity, hardly less impious than the other. Of course, it 
would unblushingly assume that, in fact, the Slave-mongers 
had already succeeded in establishing an Independent Nation 
with an untroubled government, and a secure conformation 
of territory — when in fact, nothing is established — nothing is 
untroubled — nothing is secure, — not even a single boundary line; 
and there is no element of Independence except the audacious 
attempt ; when, in fact, the conflict is still waged on numerous 
battle-fields, and these pretenders to Independence have been 
driven from State to State — driven away from the Mississippi, 
which parts them — driven back from the sea which surrounds 
them — and shut up in the interior or in blockaded ports, so that 
only by stealth can they communicate with the outward world. 
Any Recognition of such a pretension, existing only as a pre- 
tension, scouted and denied by a whole people with invincible 
armies and navies embattled against it, would be a flaming 
mockery of Truth. It would assert Independence as a fact 
when notoriously it was not a fact. It would be an enormous lie. 
Naturally a Power thus guilty would expect to support the lie by 
arms. * 

[lY.] 

Impossibility of any Recognition op Rebel Slave-Mongers 
WITH Slavery as a Corner-Stone. 

But I do not content myself with a single objection to this 
outrageous consummation. There is another of a different nature. 
Assuming, for the moment, what I am glad to believe can never 
happen, that the new Slave Power has become Independent in 
fact, while the national flag has sunk away exhausted in the con- 
test, there is an objection which, in an age of Christian light, thank 
God ! cannot be overcome — unless the Great Powers which, by 
solemn covenants, have branded Slavery, shall forget their vows, 
while England, the declared protectress of the African race, and 
Prance, the declared champion of " ideas," both break away from 
the irresistible logic of their history and turn their backs upon 
the past. Vain is honor ; vain is human confidence, if these 
nations at a moment of high duty can thus ignobly fail. " Renown 
and grace is dead." Like the other objection, this is of fact 
also ; for it is founded on the character of the Slave-monger pre- 
tension claiming Recognition, all of which is a fact. Perhaps it 
may be said that it is a question of policy ; but it is of a policy 
which ought to be beyond question, if the fact he established. 
Something more is necessary than that the new Power shall be 
de facto Independent. It must be de facto fit to be Independent and 
from the nature of the case every nation will judge of this fitness 



54 

as a fact. In undertaking to acknowledge a neiv Power, you 
proclaim its fitness for welcome and association in the Family of 
Nations. Can England put forth such a proclamation in favor of 
the whippers of women and sellers of children ? Can France 
permit Louis Napoleon to put forth such a proclamation ? 

And here, on the threshold of this inquiry, the true state of the 
question must not be forgotten. It is not whether old and existing 
relations shall be continued with a Power which permits Slavery ; 
but whether relations shall be begun with a new Poiver, which 
not merely permits Slavery, but builds its whole intolerable 
pretension upon this Barbarism. " No -New Slave State " is a 
watchword with which we are already familiar ; but even this cry 
does not reveal the full opposition to this ?ieiv revolt against Civili- 
zation ; for even if disposed to admit a neii^ Slave State, there 
must be, among men who have not yet lost all sense of decency, 
an undying resistance to the admission of a New Slave Power, 
having such an unquestioned origin and such an unquestioned 
purpose as that which now flaunts in piracy and blood before the 
civilized world, seeking Recognition for its criminal chimera. 
Here is nothing for nice casuistry. Duty is as plain as the moral 
law or the multiplication table. 

Look for a moment at the nnprecedented character of this pre- 
tension. A President had been elected by the people, in the 
autumn of 18G0, who was known to be against the extension of 
Slavery. Tliis was all. He had not yet entered upon the per- 
formance of his duties. But the Slave-mongers saw that Slavery 
at home must suffer under this popular judgment against its 
extension, and they rebelled. Under tliis inspiration State after 
State pretended to withdraw from the Union and to construct a 
new Confederacy, whose " corner-stone " was Slavery. A Consti- 
tution was adopted, which declared in these words : (1.) " No 
law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves 
shall be passed ; " and (2.) " in all territory, actual or acquired, 
the institution of Negro Slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate 
States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and the 
Territorial Government." Do not start. These are the authentic 
words of the text. You will find them in the Constitution. 

Such was the unalterable fabric of the new Government. Nor 
was there any doubt or hesitation in proclaiming its distinctive 
character. Its Vice-President, Mr. Stephens, who thus far had 
been remarked for his moderation on Slavery, as if smitten with 
diabolic light, undertook to explain and vindicate the Magna Carta 
just adopted. His words are already familiar ; but they cannot 
be omitted in an accurate statement of the case. " The new 
Constitution,'" he said, " has put at rest forever all the agitating 
questions relating to our peculiar institution, African Slavery, as 
it exists among us," which he proceeds to declare " was the 
immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution." 



55 

The Vice-President then announced unequivocally the change 
that had taken place. Admitting that " it was the prevailing 
idea of the hsading statesmen at the foundation of the Old Consti- 
tution that the enslavement of the African was wrong in principle, 
socially, morally and politically, and that it was a violation of the 
laws of nature," he denounces this idea as " fundamentally 
wrong," and proclaims the new government as " founded upon 
exactly the opposite idea.^' There was no disguise. " Its founda- 
tions," he avows, " are laid, its corner-stone rests upon the great 
truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man ; that Slavery, 
subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condi- 
tion." Not content with exhibiting the untried foundation, he 
boastfully claims for the new government the priority of invention. 
" Our nev) Governments^'' he vaunts, " is the first in the history of 
the ivorld based upon this great physical, philosophical and moral 
truth. This stone which was rejected by the first builders is 
become the chief stone of the corner." And then, as if priority of 
invention were not enough, he proceeds to claim for the new 
Government future supremacy, saying that it is already " a growing 
power, which if true to itself, its destiny and its high mission, will 
become the controlling power upon this continent." 

Since Satan first declared the " corner-stone " of his new 
government and openly denounced the Almighty throne, tliere 
has been no blasphemy of equal audacity. In human history 
nothing but itself can be its })arallel. Here was the gauntlet 
thrown down to Heaven and Earth, while a disgusting Barbarism 
was proclaimed as the new Civilization. Two years have already 
passed, but, as the Rebellion began, so it is now. A Governor of 
South Carolina in a message to the Legislature as late as 3d 
April, 1863, took up the boastful strain and congratulated the 
Rebel Slave-mongers that they were " a refined, cultivated and 
enlightened people," and that the new Government was " the 
finest type that the world ever beheld." God save the mark ! 
And a leading journal, more than any other the organ of the 
Slave-mongers, has uttered the original vaunt with more than the 
original brutality. After dwelling on " the grand career and 
lofty destiny " before the new Government, the Richmond 
Examiner of 28th May, 1863, proceeds as follows; " Would that 
all of us understood and laid to heart tlie true nature of that 
career and that destiny and the responsibility it imposes. The 
establishment of the Confederacy is, verily, a distinct reaction 
against the whole course of the mistaken civilization of the ag-e. 
For Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, we have deliberately 
substituted Slavery, Subordination and Government. Reverently 
ive feel that our Confederacy is a God-sent missionary to the 
nations with great truths to preach. We must speak thus boldly ; 
but whoso hath ears to hear let him hear." It is this God-sent 



56 

missionary to the nations, which it is noAv proposed to welcome at 
the household hearth of the civilized world. 

Unhappily there are old nations, still tolerating Slavery, already 
in the Family ; but now, for the first time in history a new nation 
claims admission there, which not only tolerates Slavery, but, 
exulting in its shame, strives to reverse the judgment of mankind 
against this outrage, and to make it a chief support and glory, 
so that all Recognition of the new Power will be the Recognition 
of a sacrilegious pretension, 

" With one vast blood-stone for the mighty base." 

Elsewhere Slavery has been an accident ; here it is the prin- 
ciple. Elsewhere it has been an instrument only ; here it is the 
inspiration. Elsewhere it has been kept back in a becoming 
modesty ; here it is pushed forward in all its brutish nakedness. 
Elsewhere it has claimed nothing but liberty to live ; here it 
claims liberty to rule with unbounded empire at home and 
abroad. Look at this candidate Power as you will, in its 
whole continued existence, from its Alpha to its Omega, and it 
is nothing but Slavery ! Its origin is Slavery ; its main-spring is 
Slavery ; its object is Slavery. Wherever it appears, whatever it 
does, whatever form it takes, it is Slavery alone and nothing else, 
so that, with the contrition of Satan, it might cry out, 

Me miserable ! which way shall I fly 
Infinite wrath and infinite despair ? 
Which way I fly is hell ; inyself am hell. 

The Rebellion is Slavery in arms ; Slavery on horse-l)ack ; 
Slavery on foot; Slavery raging on the battle-field; Slavery 
raging on the quarter-deck, robbing, destroying, burning, killing, 
in order to uphold this candidate Power. Its legislation is 
simply Slavery in statutes ; Slavery in chapters ; Slavery in 
sections — with an enacting clause. Its Diplomacy is Slavery in 
pretended ambassadors ; Slavery in cunning letters ; Slavery in 
cozening promises ; Slavery in persistent negotiations — all to 
secure for the candidate Power its much desired welcome. 
Say what you will ; try to avoid it if you can ; you are com- 
pelled to admit that the candidate Power is nothing else 
than organized Slavery, which now in its madness — sur- 
rounded by its criminal clan, and led by its felon chieftains — 
braves the civilization of the age. Therefore any Recogni- 
tion of this Power will be a Recognition of Slavery itself, with 
welcome and benediction, imparting to it nev) consideration and 
respectability, and worse still, securing to it neio opportunity and 
foothold for the supremacy which it openly proclaims. 

In ancient days the candidate was robed in white, while at the 
Capitol and in the Forum, he canvassed the people for their votes. 
The candidate Nation, which is not ashamed of Slavery, should 



57 

be robed in black, while it conducts its great canvass and asks 
the votes of the Christian Powers. " Hung be the heavens with 
black, yield day to night," as the outrage proceeds ; for the 
candidate gravely asks the international Recognition of the 
claim to hold property in man ; to sell the wdfe away from the 
husband ; to sell the child away from the parent ; to shut the 
gates of knowledge ; to appropriate all the fruits of another's 
labor. And yet the candidate proceeds in his canvass — although 
all history declares that Slavery is essentially barbarous, and 
that whatever it touches it changes to itself; that it barba- 
rizes laws ; barbarizes business ; barbarizes manners ; barbarizes 
social life, and makes the people who cherish it barbarians. And 
still the candidate proceeds — although it is known to the Christian 
Powers that the partisans of Slavery are naturally " filibusters," 
always apt for lawless incursions and for robbery ; that, during 
latter years, under their instigation and to advance their preten- 
sions, expeditions, identical in motive ivith the present Rebellion, 
were let loose in the Gulf of Mexico, twice against Cuba, and 
twice also against Nicaragua, breaking the peace of the United 
States and threatening the repose of the world, so that Lopez 
and Walker were the predecessors of Beauregard and Jefferson 
Davis. And yet the candidate proceeds — although it is obvious 
that the Recognition which is urged, will be nothing less than a 
solemn sanction by the Christian Powers of Slavery everywhere 
throughout the new jurisdiction, whether on land or sea, so that 
every ship, which is a part of the floating' territory, will be Slave 
Terrilorij. And yet with the phantasy that man can hold property 
in man shooting from his lips ; with the shackle and lash in his 
hands ; with Barbarism on his forehead ; with Filibusterism in his 
recorded life ; and with Slavery flying in his flag wherever it 
floats on land or sea ; the candidate clamors for Christian Recog- 
nition. It is sad to think that there has been delay in repelling 
the insufferable canvass. " Is thy servant a dog that he should do 
this thing ? " It is not necessary to be a Christian ; it is sufficient 
to be a man — in order to detest and combat such an accursed 
pretension. 

If the Recognition of a de facto Power was a duty imposed 
upon other nations by International Law, there would be no 
opportunity for objections founded on principle or policy. But 
there is no such duty. International Law leaves to each nation, 
precisely as the municipal law leaves to each citizen, what com- 
pany to keep or what copartnership to form. No company and 
no copartnership can be forced upon a nation. It is all a question 
of free choice and acceptance. International Law on this head 
is like the Constitution of the United States, whicli declares : 
" New States 7nay be admitted by the Congress into this Union." 
Not must but may ; it being in the discretion of Congress to 
determine whether the vState shall be admitted. Accordingly, in 



58 

the exercise of this discretion, Congress for a long time refused 
to admit Missouri as a Slave Slate. And now the old Missouri 
Question, in a more outrageous form, on a grander theatre, "with 
monarchs to behold the swelling scene," — is presented to the Chris- 
tian Powers of the world. If it were right to exclude Missouri, 
having a few slaves only and regarding Slavery merely as a 
temporary condition, it must be right to exclude a pretended 
nation, which not only boasts its millions of slaves, but passion- 
ately proclaims the perpetuity and propagation of slavery as the 
cause and object of its separate existence. 

Practical statesmen have always treated the question of Recog- 
nition as one of policy — to be determined on the facts of the 
case — even where the Power was de facto established ; as 
appears amply in the debates of the British Parliament on 
the Recognition of Spanish America. If we go behind the 
practical statesmen and consult the earliest oracles of Interna- 
tional Law, we shall find that, according to their most approved 
words, not only may Recognition be refused, but there are 
considerations of duty this way which cannot be evaded. It is 
not enough that a pretender has the form of a Commonwealth. 
" A people," says Cicero, in a definition copied by most jurists, 
" is not every body of men hoivsoever congregated, but a gathered 
multitude, associated under the sanction of justice and for the 
common g-ood." — Juris consensu et utililalis communione sociatus. 
(De Repub. Lib. L, 25.) And again he goes so far as to say, in 
the Republic, " when the king is unjust, or the aristocracy, or 
the people itself, the Commonwealth is not vicious but nidiy Of 
course a Commonwealth that was null would not be recognized. 
But Grotius, who speaks always with the magistral voice of learning 
and genius, has given the just conclusion, when he presents the 
distinction between a body of men, who being already a Recog- 
nized Commonwealth, are guilty of systematic crime, as, for 
instance, of piracy, and another body of men, who, not yet Recog- 
nized as a Commomvealtli, are banded together for the sake of 
systematic crime — sceleris causa coeunt. (De Jure Belli, ac Pacis, 
Lib. iii., cap. 3, § 2.) The latter, by a happy discrimination, he 
places beyond the pale of honor or fellowship ; ?iam hi criminis 
causd socianlur. But when before in all history, have creatures, 
•wearing the human form, proclaimed the criminal principle of 
their association, with the audacity of our Slave-mongers ? 

It might be argued, on grounds of reason and authority even, 
that the declared principle of the pretended Power, was a violation 
of International Law. Eminent magistrates have solemnly ruled, 
that, in the development of civilization, the slave-trade has 
become illegal, by a law higher than any statute. Sir William 
Grant, one of the ornaments of the British bench, whose elegant 
mind was governed always by practical sense, adjudged that " this 
trade cannot, abstractedlt/ speaking-, hvixe any legitimate existence," 



59 

(^Amedie, 2 Acton R. 240) ; and onr own great authority, Mr. 
Justice Story, in a remarkable judgment, declared himself con- 
strained " to consider the trade against the universal law of 
society." {La Jeiuie Eugenie., 2 Mason R. 451.) But the argu- 
ments which are strong against any Recognition of the slave- 
trade, are strong also against any Recognition of Slavery itself. 

It is not, however, necessary, in the determination of present 
duty, to assume that Slavery, or the slave-trade, is positively for- 
bidden by existing International Law. It is enough to show, 
that according to the spirit of that sovereign law which " sits 
empress, crowning good, repressing ill," and according also to 
those commanding principles of justice and humanity, which 
cannot be set at naught without a shock to human nature itself, 
so foul a wrong as Slavery can receive no voluntary support from 
the Commonwealth of Nations. It is not a question of law but 
a question of Morality. The Rule of Law is sometimes less com- 
prehensive than the Rule of Morality, so that the latter may 
positively condemn what the former silently tolerates. But within 
its own domain the Rule of Morality cannot be less authoritative 
than the Rule of Law itself. It is, indeed, nothing less than the 
Law of Nature and also the Law of God. If we listen to a 
Heathen teacher we shall confess its binding power. " Law," 
says Cicero, "is the highest reason implanted in nature., iv /rich 
prescribes those things ivhich ought to be done, and forbids the 
contrary." — (^DeLegibtis, Lib. i., cap. 5.) This law is an essential 
part of International Law, as is also Christianity itself, and, 
where treaties fail and usage is silent, it is the only law between 
nations. Jurists of all ages and countries have delighted to 
acknowledge its authority, if it spoke only in the still small voice 
of conscience. A celebrated professor of Germany in our own 
day, Savigny, whose name is honored by the students of juris- 
prudence everywhere, touches upon this monitor of nations, when 
he declares that " there may exist between different nations a 
common consciousness of Right similar to that which engenders 
the Positive Law of particular nations." — (System des lieutigen 
Rd'mischen Rechts, L. vii., cap 11, §11.) But this common con- 
sciousness of right is identical with that law, which, according to 
Cicero, is " the highest reason implanted in nature." Such is 
the Rule of Morality. 

The Rule of Morality differs from the Rule of Law in this 
respect : that the former finds its support in the human con- 
science ; the latter in the sanctions of public force. But moral 
power prevails with a good man as much as if it were physical. I 
know no different rule for a good nation than for a good man. 
I am sure that a good nation will not do what a good man would 
scorn to do. 

But there is a rule of prudence superadded to the Rule of 
Morality. Grotius in discussing treaties does not forget the 



60 

wisdom of Solomon, who, in not a few places, warns against 
fellowship with the wicked, although he adds, that these were 
maxims of prudence and not of law. — (Lib. ii., cap. 15, § 9.) 
And he reminds us of the saying of Alexander, " that those 
grievously offend who enter the service of Barbarians." {Ibid, 
§ 11.) But better still are the words of the wise historian of 
classical antiquity, who enjoins upon a Commonwealth the duty of 
considering carefully, wlien sued for assistance, " whether what is 
sought is sufficiently pious, safe, glorious, or on the other hand 
unbecoviing-;^^ — (^Sallust Fragm., iv. 2.) and also those words 
of Scripture which after rebuking an alliance with Ahab, ask with 
scorn, " Shouldst thou help the ungodly ? " (2 Chron., xiv.,, 2.) 
If the claim for Recognition be brought to the touch-stone of 
these principles, it will be easy to decide it. 

Yain is it to urge the Practice of Nations in its behalf. Never 
before in history has such a candidacy been put forward in the 
name of Slavery ; and the terrible outrage is aggravated by the 
Christian light which surrounds it. This is not the age of dark- 
ness. But even in the Dark Ages, when the Slave-mongers of 
Algiers " liad reduced themselves to a government or state," the 
renowned Louis IX. " treated them as a nest of wasps." (1 Phil- 
limore, p. 80.) Afterwards but slowly tliey obtained " the rights 
of legation " and " the reputation of a government ; " but at last, 
weary of their criminal pretensions, the aroused vengeance of 
Great Britain and France blotted out this Power from the list of 
nations. Louis XL, who has been described as " the sovereign 
who best understood his interest," indignant at Richard III. of 
England, who had murdered two infants in the tower, and usurped 
the crown, sent back his ambassadors without holding any inter- 
course with tliem. This is a valuable precedent ; for the parricide 
usurper of England had never murdered so many infants, or 
usurped so much as the pretended Slave Power, which is strangely 
tolerated by the sagacious sovereign who sits on the throne of 
Louis XI. But it is not necessary to go so far in history ; nor 
to dwell on the practice of nations in withholding or conceding 
Recognition. The whole matter is stated by Burke with his 
customary power : 

" In the case of a divided kingdom by the Law of Nations, Great Britain, 
like every other Power, is free to take any part she pleases. She may 
decline, with more or less formality, according to her discretion, to acknowl- 
edge this new system ; or she may recognize it as a government de facto, 
setting aside all discussion of its original legality, and considering the 
ancient monarchy as at an end. The Law of Nations leaves our court 
open to its choice. The declaration of a new species of government on new 
principles is a real crisis in the politics of Europe." ( Thoughts on French 
Affairs, 1791.) 



61 

Another eloquent publicist, Sir James Mackintosh, while urging 
on Parliament the Recognition of Spanish America, says, " The 
reception of a new State into the society of civilized nations by 
those acts which amount to recognition is a proceeding, which, as 
it has no legal character, is purely of a moral nature ; " and he 
proceeds to argue that since England is " the only anciently free 
State in the world, for her to refuse her moral aid to communities 
struggling; for liberty^ is an act of unnatural harshness." {3Iack- 
inlosli's Works^ Vol. iii. p. 488.) Thus does he vindicate Recog- 
nition for the sake of Freedom. How truly he would have 
repelled any Recognition for the sake of Slavery, let his life 
testify. 

But, perhaps, no better testimony to the practice of nations can 
be found than in the words of Vattel, whose work, presenting the 
subject in a familiar form, has done more, during the last century, 
to fashion opinion on the Law of Nations than any other authority. 
Here it is briefly : — 

" If there be any nation that makes an open profession of trampling justice 
under foot, of despising and violating the right of others, whenever it finds 
an oi)i)ortunity, the interest of human society will authorize all others to 
humble and chastise it." {Book ii., cap. 4, § 70.) " To form and support 
an unjust p)retension is to do an injury not only to him who is interested in 
this pretension, but to mock at justice in general and to injure all nations." 
{Ibid.) " He who assists an bdious tyrant — he who declares for an unjust 
and rebellious people — violates his duty." {Ibid, § 5G.) "As to those 
monsters, who under the title of sovereigns, render themselves the scourges 
and horror of the human race, they are savage beasts, whom every brave 
man may justly exterminate from tlie face of the earth." {Ibid.) "But if 
the maxims of a religion tend to establish it by violence and to oppress all 
those who will not embrace it, the law of nature forbids us to favor that 
religion or to contract any unnecessary alliance with its inliuman followers, 
and the common safety of mankind invites them rather to enter into an 
alliance against such a people ; to repress such outrageous fanatics, who 
disturb the public repose and threaten all nations." (Ibid, Book ii., cap. 12, 
§ 1G2.) 

Vainly do you urge this Recognition on any principle of the 
Comity of Nations. This is an expansive term into which enters 
much of the refinements, amenities and hospitalities of Civiliza- 
tion, and also something of the obligations of moral duty. But 
where an act is prejudicial to national interests or contrary to 
national policy or questionable in morals, it cannot be commended 
by any consi'dcrations of courtesy. There is a paramount duty 
which must not be betrayed by a kiss. For the sake of Comity, acts 
of good will and friendship not required by law are performed 
between nations ; but an English Court has authoritatively 
declared that this principle cannot prevail " where it violates the 
law of our own country, the Law of Nature or the Law of God ; " 



62 

and on this adamantine ground it was decided, that an American 
slave, who had found slielter on board of a British man-of-war, 
could not be recognized as a slave. (^Forbes v. Cochrane^ '1 Barn, 
and Ores., R. 448.) But the same principle would prevail against 
the Recognition of a new Slave Nation. 

Vainly do you urge this Recognition on any reason of Peace. 
There can be no peace founded on injustice; and any Recognition 
is an injustice which will cry aloud resounding through the 
universe. You may seem to nave peace ; but it will be only a 
smothered war, destined to brealc forth in war more direful than 
before. 

Thus is every argument for Recognition repelled, whether it be 
under the sounding words, Practice of Nations — Comity of Nations 
— or Peace. There is nothing in Practice, nothing in Comity, 
nothing in Peace, which is not against any sucli shameful sur- 
render. 

But applying the principles which have been already set 
forth ; — assuming what cannot be denied, — that every Power is 
free to refuse Recognition ; assuming that it is not every body of 
men that can be considered a Commonwealth, but only " those 
associated under the sanction of justice and for tlie common good;" 
that men " banded together for tlie sake of systematic crime " can- 
not be considered a Commonwealth ; — assuming that every member 
of the Family of Nations will surely obey the Rule of Morality ; 
that it will " shun fellowship with the wicked ; " that it will not 
" enter into the service of Barbarians ; " that it will avoid what is 
" unbecoming " and do that only which is " pious, safe and 
glorious ; " and that above all things it will not enter into an 
alliance " to help the ungodly;" assuming these things — every 
such member must reject with indignation a new pretension whose 
declared principle of association is so essentially wicked. Here 
there can be no question. The case is plain ; nor is any language 
of contumely or scorn too strong to express the irrepressible 
repugnance to such a pretension, which, like vice, " to be hated 
needs only to be seen." Surely there can be no Christian Power 
which will not leap to expose it, saying with irresistible voice : 
(1.) No nevj sanction of Slavery. (2.) No neiv quickening of 
Slavery in its active and aggressive Barbarism. (3.) No iiew 
encouragement to the " filibusters " engendered by Slavery. (4.) 
No neiv creation of Slave territory. (5.) No new creation of a 
Slave Navy. (6.) No new Slave Nation. (7.) No installation 
of Slavery as a neiv Civilization. But all this Litany will fail, if 
Recognition prevails — from which Good Lord deliver us! Nor 
will this be the end of the evil. 

Slavery, through the neiv Power, will take its place in the 
Parliament of mankind, with all the immunities of an Lidepen- 
dent Nation, ready always to uphold and advance itself, and 
organized as an unrelenting Propaganda of the new Faith. A 



63 

Power, having its inspiration in such a Barbarism, must be essen- 
tially barbarous ; founded on the asserted right to whip women 
and to sell children, it must assume a character of disgusting 
hardihood, and, openly professing a determination to revolutionize 
the Public Opinion of the world, it must be in open schism with 
Civilization itself, so that all its influences will be wild, savage, 
brutal, and all its offspring kindred in character, 

Pard genders pard ; from tigers tigers spring ; 
No dove is hatched beneatli the vulture's wing. 

Such a Power, from its very nature, must be Despotism at home 
"tempered only by assassination," with cotton-fields instead of 
Siberia, while abroad it must be aggressive, dangerous and revolt- 
ing, in itself a Magnum Latrocinium, whose fellowsliip can have 
nothing but " the filthiness of Evil," and whose very existence will 
be an intolerable nuisance. When Dante, in the vindictive judgment 
which he hurled against his own Florence, called it bordello, he 
did not use a term too strong for the mighty House of 111 Fame 
which the Christian Powers are now asked for the first time to 
license. Such must be the character of the new Power. But 
though only a recent wrong, and pleading no prescription, the 
illimitable audacity Of its nature will hesitate at nothing ; nor is 
there any thing offensive or detestable which it will not absorb 
into itself. It will be an Ishmael with its hand against every man. 
It will be a brood of Harpies defiling all which it cannot steal. 
It will be the one-eyed Cyclop of nations, seeing only through 
Slavery, spurning all as fools who do not see likewise, and bellow- 
ing forth in savage egotism : 

Know then, we Cyclops are a race above 
Those air-bred people and their goat-nursed Jove ; 
And learn our power proceeds with thee and thine 
Not as Jove wills, but as ourselves incline. 

Or worse still, it will be the soulless monster of Frankenstein— the 
wretched creation of mortil science without God — endowed with 
life and nothing else— forever raging n;adly, the scandal to human- 
ity — powerful only for evil — whose destruction will be essential to 
the peace of the world. 

Who can welcome such a creation ? Who can consort with it ? 
There is something loatlisome in the idea. There is contamina- 
tion even in the thought. If you live with the lame, says theancient 
proverb, you will learn to limp ; if you keep in the kitchen you will 
smell of smoke ; if you touch pitch you will be defiled. But what 
lameness so pitiful as that of this pretended Power ; what smoke so 
foul as its breath ; what pitch so defiling as its touch ? It is an 
Oriental saying that a cistern of rose-water will become impure, 
if a dog be dropt into it ; but a continent of rose-water with 



64 

Rebel Slave-mongers would be changed into a vulgar puddle. 
Imagine, if you please, whatever is most disgusting, and this 
pretended Power is more disgusting still. Naturalists report 
that the pike will swallow any thing except the toad ; but this it 
cannot do. The experiment has been tried, and, though this fish, 
in its voracity, always gulps whatever is thrown to it, yet invaria- 
bly it spews this nuisance from its throat. But our Slave-monger 
pretension is worse than the toad ; and yet there are Foreign 
Nations which, instead of spewing it forth, are already turning it 
like a precious morsel on the tongue. 

But there is yet another ground on which I make this appeal. 
It is a part of the triumphs of Civilization, that no Nation can 
act for itself alone. Whatever it does for good or for evil, 
affects all the rest. Therefore a Nation cannot forget its obli- 
gations to others. Especially does International Law, when 
it declares the alisolute Equality of Independent Nations, 
cast upon all Nations the duty of considering well how this 
privilege shall be bestowed, so that the welfare of all may be 
best upheld. But the whole Family of Nations would be 
degraded by admitting this new pretension to any toleration, much 
less to any equality. There can be no reason for such admission ; 
for it can bring nothing to the general weal. Civil society is 
created for safety and tranquillity. Nations come together and 
fraternize for the common good. But this hateful pretension can 
do nothing but evil for civil society at home or for nations in their 
relations with each other. It can show no title to Recognition ; 
no passport for its travels; no old creation. It is all new; and 
here let me borrow the language of Burke on another occasion ; 
" It is not a new Power of an old kind. It is a neiv Poiuer of a 
new species. When such a questionable shape is to be admitted 
for the first time into the brotherhood of Christendom, it is not 
a mere matter of idle curiosity to consider how far it is in its 
nature alliable ivith the rest.''^ (^Reg-icide Peace, 2d Letter.") 
The greatest of corporations is a nation ; the sublimest of all 
associations is that which is composed of nations, independent 
and equal, knit together in the bonds of peaceful Fraternity as 
the great Christian Commonwealth. The Slave-mongers may be 
a corporation in fact; but no such corporation can find a place in 
that sublime Commonwealth. As well admit the Thugs, whose 
first article of faith is to kill a stranger — or the Buccaneers, those 
old " brothers of the coast," who plundered on the sea — or better 
still revive the old Kingdom of the Assassins, where the king was 
an assassin, surrounded by counsellors and generals who were 
assassins, and all his subjects were assassins. Or yet again better 
at once and openly recognize Anti-Christ, who is the supreme and 
highest impersonation of the Slave-Power. 

Amidst the general degradation that would follow such an 
obeisance to Slavery, there are two Christian Powers that would 



65 

appear in sad and shameful eminence. I refer to Great Britain — 
the declared " protectress of the African race," — and to France, the 
declared champion of " ideas," — who, from the very largess of their 
pledges, are so situated, that they cannot desert tlie good old 
cause and turn their backs upon civilization without a criminal 
self 'Stultification, which no amount of apologies can conceal. 
Where then would be British devotion to the African race ? 
Where then would be French devotion to ideas ? — Remem- 
bered only to point a tale and show how nations had fallen. 
Great Britain knows less than France of national vicissitudes ; 
but such an act of wrong would do something in its influence to 
equalize the conditions of these two nations. Better for the fast- 
anchored isle that it should be sunk beneath the sea, with its 
cathedrals, its castles, its fields of glory, Runnymede, West- 
minster Hall and the home of Shakspeare, than that it should do 
this thing. In other days England has valiantly striven against 
Slavery ; and now she proposes to surrender, at a moment when 
more can be done than ever before against the monster wherever 
it shows its liead, for Slavery everywhere has its neck in this 
Rebellion. In otlier days France has valiantly striven for ideas; 
and now she too proposes to surrender, although all that she has 
professed to have at heart is involved in tlie doom of Slavery, 
which a word from her might hasten beyond recall. But it is in. 
England, more even than in France, that the strongest sentiment 
for Rebel Slave-mongers has been manifest, constituting a moral 
mania, which menaces a pact and concordat with the Rebellion 
itself, — as when an early Pope, the head of the Christian Church, 
did not hesitate to execute a piratical convention with a pagan 
enemy of the Christian name. It only remains that the new 
coalition should be signed, in order to consummate the unutterable 
degradation. It was the fate of yEdipus, in the saddest story of 
antiquity, to wed his own mother without knowing it ; but 
England will wed the Slave-Power with full knowledge that the 
relation, if not incestuous, is vile. Tlie contracting parties will 
be the Queen of England, and Jefferson Davis the Reljel Slave- 
monger patron of "repudiation." It will only remain for this 
virtuous Lady, whose pride it is to seek justice always, to bend 
in pitiful abjectness to receive as a plenipotentiary at her Court 
the author of the Fugitive Slave Bill. 

A Slave-monger Power will take its seat at the great council- 
board, to jostle thrones and benches, while it overshadows 
Humanity. Its foul attorneys, reeking with Slavery, will have 
their letter of license, as the ambassadors of Slavery, to rove 
from court to court, over foreign carpets, talking, drinking, 
spitting Slavery and poisoning that air which has been nobly 
pronounced too pure for a slave to breathe. Alas ! for England's 
Queen, seduced, led and drawn away from the cause of Wilber- 
force and Clarkson to sink into unseemly dalliance with the 



66 

scourgers of women and the auctioneers of children. Alas ! for 
that Royal Consort, humane and great, whose dying voice was 
given to assuage the temper of that ministerial despatch by which, 
in an evil hour, England was made to strike hands with Rebel 
Slave-mongers ; for the councillor is needed now to save the land 
which he adorned from an act of inexpiable shame. Alas ! for 
England, vowed a thousand times to the cause of the African 
race and knit perpetually by her best renown to this sacred 
loyalty, now plunging into adulterous honey-moon with Slavery — • 
recognizing the new and impious Protestantism against Liberty 
itself — and wickedly becoming the Defender of the Faith, even 
as professed by Rebel Slave-mongers. 

And for all this sickening immorality I hear but one declared 
apology. It is said that the Union permitted and still permits 
Slavery ; therefore Foreign Nations may recognize Rebel Slave- 
mongers as a neiv Power. But here is the precise question. 
England is still in diplomatic relations with Spain, and was only 
a short time ago in diplomatic relations with Brazil', both per- 
mitting Slavery ; but these two Powers are not new ; they are 
already established ; there is no question of their Recognition ; 
nor do they pretend to found empire on Slavery. There is no 
reason in any relations with them why a 7iev) Power, with Slavery 
as its declared " corner-stone," whose gospel is Slavery and whose 
evangelists are Slave-mongers, should be recognized in the Family 
of Nations. If Ireland were in triumphant rebellion against the 
British Queen, complaining of rights denied, it would be our duty 
to recognize her as an Independent Power ; but if Ireland 
rebelled, with the declared object of establishing a neiv Power, 
which should be nothing less than a' giant felony and a nuisance 
to the world, then it would be our duty to spurn the infamous 
pretension, and no triumph of the Rebellion could change this 
plain and irresistible necessity. And yet, in the face of this com- 
manding rule, we are told to expect the Recognition of Rebel 
Slave-mongers. 

But an aroused Public Opinion, " the world's collected will" 
and returning reason in England and France will see to it that 
Civilization is saved from this shock and the nations themselves 
from the terrible retribution which sooner or later must surely 
attend it. No Power can afford to lift itself before mankind and 
openly vote a new and untrammelled charter to injustice and 
cruelty. God is an unsleeping avenger ; nor can armies, fleets, 
bulwarks or " towers along the steep " prevail against his mighty 
anger. There is but one word whicli the Christian Powers can utter 
to any application for this unholy Recognition. It is simply and 
austerely " No," with an emphasis that shall silence argument 
and extinguish hope itself. And this Proclamation should go 
forth swiftly. Every moment of hesitation is a moment of apos- 
tacy, casting its lengthening shadow of dishonor. Not to dis- 



67 

courage is to encourage ; not to blast is to bless. Let this simple 
■word be uttered and Slavery will shrink away with a mark on its 
forehead, like Cain — a perpetual vagabond — without welcome or 
fellowship, so that it can only die. Let this simple word be 
uttered and the audacious Slave-Power will be no better than the 
Flying Dutchman^ that famous craft, which, darkened by piracy 
and murder, was doomed to a perpetual cruise, unable to enter a 
port; 

Faint and despairing in their watery bier, 
To every friendly shore the sailors steer ; 
Repelled from port to port they sue in vain, 
And track with slow, unsteady sail the main, 
Unblest of God and man ! Till time shall end 
Its view strange horror to the storm shall lend. 

No Concession op Ocean Belligerency without a Peize 
Court ; — especially to Rebel Slave-mongers. 

Too much have I spoken for your patience, if not enough for 
the cause. But there is yet another topic which I have reserved 
to the last, because logically it belongs there, or at least it can be 
best considered in the gathered light of the previous discussion. 
Its immediate, practical interest is great. I refer to the conces- 
sion of Belligerent Rights, being the first stage to Independence. 
Great Britain led the way in acknowledging the embryo gov- 
ernment of Rebel Slave-mongers as Belligerents on sea as well as 
on land, and, by a Proclamation of the Queen, declared her 
neutrality between the two parties, thus lifting the embryo gov- 
ernment of Rebel Slave-mongers, which was nothing else than 
organized and aggressive Slavery, to an Equality on sea as well 
as on land with its ancient ally, the National Government. Here 
was a blunder if not a crime — not merely in the alacrity with 
which it was done but in doing it at all. It was followed imme- 
diately by France, and then by Spain, Holland and Brazil. The 
concession of Belligerent Rights on land was only a name and 
nothing more ; therefore I say nothing about it. But the conces- 
sion of Belligerent Rights on the Ocean is of a widely different 
character, and the two reasons against the Recognition of the 
independence of the embryo government are applicable also to 
this concession. First, The embryo government has no maritime 
or wat'rt/ Belligerent Rights, c/e /ac^o; and second///, an embryo 
government of Rebel Slave-mongers cannot have the character de 
facto which would justify the concession of maritime or naval 
Belligerency ; so that could the concession be vindicated on 
the first ground, it must fail on the second. 

The concession of Ocean Belligerencij is a Letter of License 
from the consenting Powers to every Slave-monger cruiser, or 



V — 



68 

ratlier it is the countersign of these Powers to the commission of 
every such cruiser. Without such countersign the Slave-monger 
cruiser would be an outlaw, with no right to enter a single foreign 
port. The declaration of Belligerency gives to him legal compe- 
tency and admits him to testify by flag and arms. Without such 
competency he could have no flag, and no right to bear arms on 
the ocean. Burke sententiously describes it as an " intermediate 
Treaty ivhich puts rebels in possession of the Law of Nations.''^ 
And this is plainly true. 

The magnitude of this concession may be seen in three aspects ; 
first, in the immunities which it confers ; putting an embryo 
government of Rebel Slave-mongers on an equality with established 
governments,, making its cruisers lawful instead of piratical, 
and opening to them boundless facilities at sea and in port, so that 
they may obtain supplies and even hospitality. Secondly, in the 
degradation that it fastens upon the National Government, which 
is condemned to see its ships treated on an equality with the ships 
of Rebel Slave-mongers, and also the just rule of " neutrality " 
between Belligerent Powers called in to fetter its activity against a 
giant felony. And thirdly, it may be seen in the disturbance to 
commerce which it sanctions, by letting loose lawless sea-rovers, 
armed with Belligerent Rights — including the right of search ' 
-*-whose natural recklessness is left unbridled, and without 
any remedy even from diplomatic intercourse. The ocean is a 
common highway ; but on this account it is for the interest of all 
who share it, that it should not be disturbed by predatory 
hostilities. Such a concession should be made with the greatest 
caution, and then, only under the necessity of the case, on the 
overwhelming authority of the fact ; for, from beginning to end, 
it is simply a question of fact, absolutely dependent on those 
conditions and prerequisites without which Ocean Belligerency 
cannot exist. 

As a general rule, Belligerent Rights are conceded only where 
a rebel government, or contending party in a civil war, has 
acquired such form and body, that, for the time being, within 
certain limits, it is sovereign de facto, \so far at least as to 
command troops and to administer justice. The concession of 
Belligerency is the Recognition of such limited sovereignty, which 
bears the same relation to acknowledged Independence as gristle 
bears to bone. It is obvious that such sovereignty may exist 
de facto on land without existing de facto on the ocean. It may 
prevail in armies and yet fail in navies. In short tJie fact may 
be one way on land, and the other way on the ocean ; nor can it 
be inferred on the ocean simply from its existence on the land. 
Since every such concession is adverse to the original government, 
and is made only under the necessity of the case, it must be 
carefully limited to the actual fact. Indeed, Mr. Canning, who 
has shed so much light on these topics, openly took the ground 



69 

that " Belligerency is not so much a principle as a fact.''' And 
the question then arises, whether the Rebel Slave-mongers have 
acquired such de facto sovereignty on the ocean as entitles them 
to Ocean Belligerent rights. 

There are at least two " facts " which are patent to all, first, 
that the Rebel Slave-mongers have not a single port into which 
even legal cruisers can take their prizes for adjudication ; and 
secondlij, that the ships whicli now presume to exercise Ocean 
Belligerent rights in their name — constituting the Rebel Slave- 
monger navy, whicli a member of the British Cabinet said was 
" to b& created " — were all " created " in England, which is the 
naval base from which they sally forth on their predatory cruise 
without once entering a port of their own pretended Government. 

These two " facts " are different in character. The first 
attaches absolutely to the pretended Power, rendering it incom- 
petent to exercise Belligerent jurisdiction on the ocean. The 
second attaches to the individual ships, rendering them piratical. 
But these simple and unquestionable " facts " are the key to unlock 
the present question. 

From the reason of the case, there can be no Ocean Belligerent 
without a port into which it can take its prizes. Any other rule 
would be absurd. It will not be enough to sail the sea, like 
the Flying Dutchman ; the Ocean Belligerent must be able to 
touch the land and that land its own. This proceeds on the idea 
of civilized warfare, that something more than naked force is 
essential to the completeness of a capture. According to the 
earlier rule, transmutation of property was accomplished by the 
" pernoctation " of the captured ship within the port of the 
Belligerent, or as it was called, deductio infra prccsidia. As early 
as 1414, under Henry V., of England, there was an Act of Par- 
liament, requiring privateers to bring their prizes into a port of 
the kingdom^ and to make a declaration thereof to a proper officer, 
before undertaking to dispose of them. (^Runnington' s Statutes, 
Vol. i., p. 491.) But the modern rule interposes an additional 
check upon lawless violence by requiring the condemnation of a 
competent court. This rule, which is among the most authori- 
tative of the British Admiralty, will be found in the famous 
letter of Sir William Scott and Sir John Nichol, addressed to 
John Jay, as follows ; " Before the ship or goods can be disposed 
of by the captors, there must be a regular judicial proceeding, 
wherein both parties may be heard and condemnation tlierefrom 
as Prize in a Court of Admiralty, judging by the Law of Nations 
and Treaties." This is explicit. But this rule is French as well 
as English. Indeed it is a part of International Law. A seizure 
is regarded merely as n preliminari/ act, which does not divest the 
property, thougli it paralyzes the right of the proprietor. A 
subsequent act of condemnation, by a competent tribunal, is nec- 
essary to determine if the seizure is valid. The question is 



70 

compendiously called prize or no prize. Where the propt^rty of 
neutrals is involved this requirement becomes of absolute import- 
tance. In conceding Belligerency, all the customary bclligerant 
rights with regard to neutrals are conceded also, so that the 
concession puts in jeopardy neutral commerce. But without 
dwelling on this point, I content myself with tlie autlioi-ity of two 
recent French writers. M. Hautefeuille, in his elaborate work, 
says " the cruiser is not recognized as the proprietor of tlie objects 
seized, but he is held to bring- them before the tribunal and obtain 
a sentence declaring them to be prize.''^ QHaidefeuille, Des 
Droits et des Devoirs des Nations neutres, Vol. iii., p. 299, 323, 
352.) And a later writer, M. Eugene Cauchy, whose work has 
appeared since our war began, says, " A usage, which evidently 
has its source in natural eqinti/, requires that, before proceeding 
to divide the booty, there should be an inquiry as to the regularity 
of the prize ; and to this end, everij prize taken from an enemy 
should be carried before the judge established by the sovereign 
of tlie captor y (^Cauchy, Droit Maritime International, Y (A. i., 
p. 65, 06. But if the Power, calling itself Belligerent, cannot 
comply with this condition ; if it has no port into which it can 
bring the captured ship, and no court, according to the require- 
ment of the British Admiralty, with " a regular judicial proceeding 
wherein both parties may be heard," it is clearly not in a situation 
to dispose of a ship or goods as prize. Whatever may be its force 
in other respects, it lacks a vital element of Ocean Belligerency. 
In that 5e^;ii-sovereignty, which constitutes Belligerency on land, 
there must be a provision for the administration of justice, without 
which there is nothing but a mob. In that same i'ewn'-sovereignty 
on the ocean there must be a similar provision. It will not be 
enough that there should be ships duly commissioned to take 
prizes, there must also be courts to try them ; and the latter are 
not less important than the former. 

Lord Russell himself, who was so swift to make this concession, 
has been led to confess the necessity of Prize Courts on the part 
of Ocean Belligerents, and thus to expose the irrational character 
of his own work. In a letter to the Liverpool Chamber of Com- 
merce, dated 1st January, 1862, occasioned by the destruction of 
British cargoes, the Minister says : " The owners of any British 
property, not being contraband of war, on board a Federal vessel 
captured and destroyed by a Confederate vessel of war, may claim 
in a Confederate Prize Court compensation for destruction of such 
property.''^ (Wheaton's Elements, Lawrence's edit., p. 1024.) 
But if there be no Prize Court, then justice must fail; and with 
this failure tumbles in fact the whole wretched pretension of 
Ocean Belligerency — except in the galvanism of a Queen's 
Proclamation, or a Cabinet concession. 

If a cruiser may at any time burn prizes, it is only because of 
some exceptional exigency in a particular case, and not according 



71 

to any genei-cal rule. The general rule declares that there can be 
no right to take a prize, if there be no port into which it may be 
carried. The right of capture and the right of trial are the com- 
plements of each other — tliroUgh wliich a harsh prerogative is 
supposed to be rounded into the proper form of civilized warfare. 
Therefore, every ship and cargo, burned by the captors, for the 
reason that they had no port, testifies that they are without that 
vital sovereignty on the ocean, which is needed in the exercise 
of Belligerent jurisdiction, and that they are not Ocean Belliger- 
ents in fact. Nay more ; all these bonfires of the sea cry out 
against that Power, which by a precipitate concession of a false 
Belligerency furnished the torch. As well invest the rebellious 
rajahs of India, who have never tasted salt water, with this Ocean 
prerogative, so that they too may rob and burn ; as well constitute 
land-locked Poland, now in arms for Independence, an Ocean 
Belligerent ; or enroll mountain Switzerland in the same class ; or 
join with Shakspeare in making inland Bohemia a country with 
hospitable ports on the ocean. 

To aggravate this concession of a false Belligerency, the ships are 
all built, rigged, armed and manned in Great Britain. It is out 
of British oak and British iron that they are constructed ; rigged 
with British ropes ; made formidable with British arms ; supplied 
with British gunners and navigated by British crews, so as to con- 
stitute in all respects a British naval expedition. British ports sup- 
ply the place of Rebel Slave-monger ports. British ports are open 
to them when their own are closed. British ports constitute their 
naval base of operations and supplies^ furnishing every thing need- 
ful — except an ofHcer — the ship's papers — and a court for the trial 
of the prizes — each of which is essential to the legality of the expe- 
dition. And yet these same ships, thus equipped in British ports 
and 7iever touc/ting- a port of the pretended government in whose 
name they rob and burn, — being simply a rib taken out of the side 
of England and contributed to a Slave-monger Rebellion, — receive 
the further passport of Belligerency from the British Government 
when in fact the Belligerency does not exist. The whole proceed- 
ing, from the laying of the keel in a British dockyai-d to the 
bursting flames on the ocean, is a mockery of International Law 
and an insult to a friendly Power. 

The case is sometimes said to be new ; but it is new only inas- 
much as no such " parricide " is provided against in express 
terms. It was not anticipated. But the principles wliich govern 
it are as old as justice and humanity, in the interests of which 
Belligerent Rights are said to be conceded. Here it is all reversed, 
and it is now apparent that, whatever may have been the motives 
of the British Government, Belligerent Rights have been conceded 
in the interests of wjustice and udutmanity. Burning ships and 
scattered wrecks are the witnesses. If such a case is not con- 
demned by International Law, then ha?- tliis law lost its virtue.. 



72 

Call such cruisers by whatever polite term most pleases the ear, 
and you do not change their character with their name. Without 
a home and without a legal character, they are mere gypsies of 
the sea, who by their criminal acts have become disturbers of the 
common highway, outlaws and enemies of the human race. 

But there is a precedent, which shows how impossible it is for 
a pretended Power, without a single port, to possess Belligerent 
Rights on the ocean, and how impossible it is for the ship of such 
pretended Power to be any thing but a felon ship. James II. of 
England, after he had ceased to be de facto king and while he was 
an exile without a single port, undertook to issue Letters of 
Marqvie. It was argued unanswerably before the Privy Council 
of William III., that, whatever might be tlie claims de jure of a 
deposed prince, he could not receive from any other sovereign 
" international privileges ; " " that, if he could grant a commission 
to take the ships of a single nation, it would in effect be a general 
license to plunder, because those ivho were so commissioned woidd 
he their oivn judges of whatever they took; and that the reason oi 
the thing which pronounced that robbers and pirates, when they 
formed themselves into a civil society, became just enemies, pro- 
nounced also that a king without territory, without power of 
protecting the innocent or punishing the guilty, or in any way of 
administering- justice, dwindled into a pirate if he issued commis- 
sions to seize the goods and ships of nations, and that they ivho 
took commissions from him must he held hy legal inference to have 
associated ^sceleris causd^ and could not be considered as members 
of civil society^ (Phillimore, International Law, Vol. i. 401.) 
These words are strictly applicable to the present case. Whatever 
may be the force of the Rebel Slave-mongers on land, they are no 
better on the ocean than the " deposed prince " — " without 
power of protecting the innocent or punishing the gwWiY , or in any 
ivay of administering justice ;'''' and, like the prince, they too have 
" dwindled into a pirate," — except so far as they maybe sustained 
by British Recognition. 

And there is yet another precedent, which shows that the 
appropiation of a captured ship or cargo without judicial proceed- 
ings, is piracy. The case is memorable. It is none other than 
that of the famous Captain Kidd, who, on his indictment for piracy, 
as long ago as 1698, produced a commission in justification. But 
it was at once declared that it was not enough to show a commis- 
sion ; he 7nust also show a condemation of the captured ship. The 
Lord Chief Baron of that day said that " if he had acted pursuant to 
his commission he ought to have condemned ship and goods ; that 
by not condemning them he showed his aim, mind and intention, 
and that he did not act in that case by virtue of his commission, 
but quite contrary to it ; that he took the ship and shared the 
money and goods, and was taken in that very ship, so that there 
is no color or pretence that he intended to bring this ship to Eng- 



73 

land to he condemned or to have condemned it in any of the English 
plantations ; and that whilst men pursue their commissions they 
must be justified ; but when they do things not authorized or ever 
intended by them, it was as if they had no commissions. (Har- 
grave's State Trials, Vol. v. p. 314.) Capt. Kidd was condemned 
to death and executed as a pirate. If he was a pirate, worthy of 
death, then, by the same rule, those rovers who burn ships, rob 
cargoes and adorn their cabins with rows of stolen chronometers, 
— without any pretence of a Prize Court — must be pirates, worthy 
of death likewise. 

But without now considering more critically what should be 
the fate of these ocean-incendiaries, or what the responsibilities of 
England, out of whom they came, I content myself with the 
conclusion that they are not entitled to Ocean Belligerency. 

But even if Rebel Slave-mongers coagulated in embryo 
government, have arrived at that 5e?;u'-sovereignty de facto on 
the ocean which justifies the concession of Belligerent Rights, yet 
the Christian Powers should indignantly decline to make the 
concession, because they cannot do so without complicity with a 
shameful crime. Here I avoid details. It is sufficient to say, 
that every argument of fact and reason — every whisper of con- 
science and humanity — every indignant outburst of an honest 
man against the Recognition of Slave-monger Independence is 
equally strong against any concession of Ocean Belligerency. 
Indeed such concession is the half-way house to Recognition, and 
it can be made only where a nation is ready, if the fact of Inde- 
pendence be sufficiently established, to acknowledge it — on the 
principle of Yattel that " whosoever has a right to the end has a right 
to the means." (Book lY. cap. v. § 60.) But it is equally clear, 
that where a nation, on grounds of conscience, must refuse the 
Recognition of Independence, it cannot concede Belligerency, for 
ivhere the end is forbidden the means must he forbidden also. 
But the illogical absurdity of any such concession by Great 
Britain, so persistent always against Slavery and now for more 
than a generation the declared " protectress of the African race," 
becomes doubly apparent when it is considered, that every rebel 
ship built in England and invested with Ocean Belligerency, 
carries with it the law of Slavery, so that the ship becomes an 
extension of Slave Territory by British concession. 

And yet it is said that such a monster is entitled to the conces- 
sion of ocean rights, and the British Queen is made to proclaim 
them. Sad day for England when another wicked compromise 
was struck with Slavery, kindred in nature to that old Treaty, 
which mantles the cheeks of honest Englishmen as they read it, 
by which the slave-trade was protected and its profits secured to 
British subjects ! I know not the profits which have been secured 
by the destruction of American commerce ; but I do know that 
the Treaty of Utrecht, crimson with the blood of slaves, is not 



74 

so crimson as that reckless Proclamation, which gave to Slavery a 
frantic life, and helped for a time, nay still helps the demon, in 
the rage with which it battles against Human Rights. Such a 
ship with the Law of Slavery on its deck and with the flag of 
Slavery at its mast-head, sailing for Slavery, burning for Slavery, 
fighting for Slavery and knowing no other sovereignty than the 
pretended government of Rebel Slave-mongers, can be nothing 
less, in spirit and character, than a Slave-Pirate and the enemy of 
the human race. Like produces like, and the parent Power, 
which is Slavery, must stamp itself upon the ship, making it a 
floating oflence to Heaven, with no limit to its audacity — wild, 
outrageous, impious, a monster of the deep to be hunted down by 
all who have not forgotten their duty alike to God and man. 

Meanwhile there is one simple act which the justice of England 
cannot continue to refuse. That fatal concession of Ocean 
Belligerency, made in a moment of eclipse, wlien reason and 
humanity were obscured, must be annulled. The blunder-crime 
must be renounced, so tliat the Slave-pirates may no longer sail the 
sea, burning, destroying, robbing, with British license. Then will 
they promptly disappear forever, and with them will disappear 
the occasion of strife between two Great Powers, who ought to 
be, if not as mother and child, at least as brothers among the 
Nations. And may God in his mercy help this consummation ! 

And here I leave this part of the subject, founding my objec- 
tions on two grounds : 

(1.) The embryo government of Rebel Slave-mongers has not 
that degree of sovereignty on the ocean which is essential to 
Belligerency there. 

(2.) Even if it possessed the requisite sovereignty, no Christian 
Power can make any such concession to it without a shameful 
complicity with Slavery. 

Both of these are objections of fact. Either is sufficient. But 
even if the Belligerency seems to be established as a fact, still its 
concession in this age of Christian light would seem to be impos- 
sible, unless under some temporary aberration, which, for the 
honor of England and the welfare of Humanity, it is to be hoped 
will speedily pass away. 
* 

Our Duties. 

Again, fellow-citizens, I crave forgiveness for this long trespass 
upon your patience. If the field that we have traversed has been 
ample, it has been brightened always by the light of International 
Justice, exposing clearly from beginning to end the sacred land- 
marks of duty. I have been frank, disguising nothing and keeping 
nothing back ; so that you have been able to see the perils to which 
the Republic is exposed from the natural tendency of war to breed 
war, as exhibited in the examples of history, and also from the 



75 

fatal proclivity of Foreign Powers to intermeddle, as exhibited in 
recent instances of querulous criticism or intrusive proposition, all 
adverse to the good cause, while pirate ships have been permitted 
to depredate on our commerce; then how the best historic instances 
testify in favor of Freedom and howall Intervention of every kind, 
whether by proffer of mediation or otherwise, becomes intolerable 
when its influence tends to the establisliment of that soulless 
anomaly a professed Republic built on the hopeless and everlasting 
bondage of a race — and especially how Great Britain is sacredly 
engaged by all the logic of her history and all her traditions in 
unbroken lineage against any such unutterable baseness ; then 
how all the Christian Powers, constituting the Family of Nations, 
are firmly bound to set their faces against any Recognition of the 
embryo government of Rebel Slave-mongers, on two grounds ; 
first, because its Independence is not in fad established ; and 
secondlij, because, even if in fact established, its Recognition is 
impossible without criminal complicity with Slavery ; and lastly, 
how these same Christian Powers are firmly bound by the same 
two-fold reasons against any concession of Ocean rights to this 
hideous pretender. 

It only remains that the Republic should lift itself to the height 
of its great duties. War is hard to bear — with its waste, its pains, 
its wounds, its funerals. But in this war we have not been 
choosers. We have been challenged to the defence of our 
country, and in this sacred cause, to crush Slavery. There is no 
alternative. Slavery began the combat, staking its life and 
determined to rule or die. That we may continue freemen there 
must be no slaves ; so that our own security is linked with the 
redemption of a race. Blessed lot, amidst the harshness of war, 
to wield the arms and deal the blows under which the monster 
will surely fall ! The battle is mighty, for into Slavery has 
entered the Spirit of Evil. It is persistent, for such a gathered 
wickedness, concentrated, aroused and maddened, must have a 
tenacity of life, which will not yield at once. But might will not 
save it now ; nor time either. 

That the whole war is contained in Slavery may be seen, not 
only in the acts of the National Government, but also in the 
confessions of the Rebel Slave-mongers. Already the President, 
by Proclamation, has announced that the slaves throughout the 
whole rebel region " are and henceforward shall be free," and, in 
order to give the fullest assurance of the irreversible character of 
this sublime edict, he has further announced " that the Executive 
Government of the United States, including the military and 
naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom 
of such persons." Already an enlightened Commission has been 
constituted, to consider how these thronging frecdmen can be 
best employed for their own good and the national defence. And 



76 

already the sons of Africa, as mustered soldiers of the Union, 
have put forth a discipline and a bravery, not unwortliy of tlieir 
fatliers of old, when the prophet Jeremiah said, " Let the mighty 
men come fortli, tlie Ethiopians that handle the shield ; " (cap. 
xlvi., V. 9,) and still further, by their stature, by their appearance 
in the ranks and even by the unexpected testimony of sanitary 
statistics — according to which for every black soldier disabled by 
sickness there are more than ten white, thus making the army 
health of the black ten times as sure as that of the white — by all 
these things, they have shown that the Father of History, who is 
our earliest classical authority, was not entirely mistaken when 
he spoke of Ethiopia as " the most distant region of the earth, 
whose inhabitants are the tallest, most beautiful and most long- 
lived of the human race." (Herodotus HI., 11-1.) But even if 
these acts of the National Government were less significant, all 
doubt is removed by the Rebel Slave-mongers themselves, who in. 
Satanic audacity, openly avow that Slavery is the end and aim of 
the Government which they seek to establish, so that every blow 
which is struck by them is struck for Slavery. Therefore, in 
battling against the Rebellion we battle against Slavery. Free- 
dom is the growing inspiration of our armies and the just 
inscription of our banners. By this sig-n conquer. Such a war 
is not in any just sense a war of subjugation ; but a war of 
Liberation — in order to save the Republic from a petty oligarchy 
of task-masters, and to rescue four millions of human beings from 
a cruel oppression. Not to subjugate but to liberate is the object 
of our Holy War. And yet British statesmen, forgetting for the 
moment all moral distinctions — forgetting God who will not be 
forgotten — gravely announce thaf our cause must fail! Alas! 
individual wickedness is too often successful ; but a pretended 
Nation, suckled in wickedness and boasting its wickedness — a 
new Sodom, with all the guilt of the old, waiting to be blasted 
and yet, in its effrontery, openly seeking the fellowship of 
Christian Powers — is doomed to defeat. Toleration of such a 
pretension is practical Atheism. Chronology and geography are 
both offended by it. Piety stands aghast. In this age of light 
and in countries boasting civilization, there can be no place for 
its barbarous plenipotentiaries. As well expect crocodiles crawl- 
ing on the pavements of London and Paris, or the carnivorous 
idols of Africa installed for worship in Westminster Abbey and 
Notre Dame. 

Even if the Republic were less strong, yet I am glad to believe 
that the Rebellion must fail, from the essential impossibility of any 
such wicked success. The responsibilities of the Christian Powers 
would be increased by our weakness. Behind our blockade there 
would be a moral blockade ; behind our armies there would be the 
aroused judgment of the civilized word. But not on this account 
can we hesitate. This is no time to stop. Foriuard; Forward. 



77 

Thus do I, who formerly pleaded so often for peace, now sound to 
arms. But it is because, in this terrible moment, there is no 
other way to that sincere and solid peace without which there will 
be endless war. Even on economic grounds, it were better that 
this war should proceed, rather than recognize any partition, 
which, beginning with humiliation, must involve the perpetuation 
of armaments and break out again in blood. But there is some- 
thing worse than waste of money ; it is waste of character. Give 
me any peace but a Liberticide peace. In other days the immense 
eloquence of Burke was stirred against a Regicide peace. But a 
peace founded on the killing of a king is not so bad as a peace 
founded on the killing of Liberty ; nor can the saddest scenes of 
such a peace be so sad as the daily life which is legalized by 
Slavery. A Queen on the scaffold is not so pitiful a sight as a 
woman on the auction-block. Therefore, I say again, Fonvard I 
Forward ! 

But while thus steady in our purpose at home, we must not 
neglect that proper moderation abroad, which becomes the con- 
sciousness of our strength and the nobleness of our cause. The 
mistaken sympathy which Foreign Powers now bestow upon 
Slavery, — or it may be the mistaken insensibility — under the 
plausible name of " neutrality," which they profess — will be worse 
for them than for us. For them it will be a record of shame which 
their children would gladly blot out with tears. For us it will be 
only another obstacle vanquished in the battle for Civilization, 
where unhappily false friends are mingled with open enemies. 
Even if the cause shall seem for a while imperilled from Foreign 
Powers, yet our duties are none the less urgent. If the pressure 
be great, the resistance must be greater ; nor can there be any 
retreat. Come weal or woe this is the place for us to stand. 

I know not if a Republic like ours can count even now upon 
the certain friendship of any European Power, unless it be the 
Republic of William Tell. The very name is unwelcome to the 
full-blown representatives of old Europe, who forget how proudly, 
even in modern history, Venice bore the title of Serenissima 
Respublica. It will be for us to change all this, and we shall do 
it. Our successful example will be enough. Thus far we have 
been known, chiefly through that vital force which Slavery could 
only degrade but not subdue. Now at last, by the death of 
Slavery, will the Republic begin to live. For what is life without 
Liberty ? Stretcliing from ocean to ocean — teeming with popula- 
tion—bountiful in resources of all kinds— and thrice-liapjiy in 
universal enfranchisement — it will be more than conqueror. 
Nothing too vast for its power; nothing too minute for its care. 
Triumphant over the foulest wrong ever inflicted— after the blood- 
iest war ever waged — it will know the majesty of Riglit and the 
beauty of Peace — prepared always to uphold the one and to culti- 
vate the other. Strong in its own mighty stature— filled with all^ 

LofC. 



78 

the fulness of a new life and covered with a panoply of renown, 
it will confess that no dominion is of value which does not 
contribute to human happiness. Born in this latter day and the 
child of its own struggles, without ancestral claims, but heir of 
all the ages — it will stand forth to assert the dignity of man, and 
wherever any member of the Human Family is to be succored, 
there its voice will reach — as the voice of Cromwell reached 
across France even to the persecuted mountaineers of the Alps. 
Such will be this Republic ; — upstart among the nations. Aye! 
as the steam-engine, the telegraph and chloroform are upstart. 
Comforter and Helper like these, it can know no bounds to its 
empire over a willing world. But the first stage is the death of 
Slavery. 



,y 



^If 



/-J 



